So I do not have so much experience of that.
Thank You very much for your explanation.
Is the logo used on the site.
Is the NRL team, West Tigers.
Corpyright infringment ?
The logo we are using comes from a webb designer whos name is Andy Wilson.
He lives in Lytham StAnnes in UK.
The original photo of the logo I do have includes his name. I got it from him including one of our first website option.
I do believ he could answer those questions to You.
Also just to continue the explanation of the few things. The explanation of the name ESDS. It is Explosive Self Defence System. The name comes from the way of performing the movements.
Nothing fancy in the explanation and in the name.
If you google on ESDS you will find out very soon the other options and products who could be offered by other companies.
Also I started to use the name ESD / Explosive Self Defence in 1992. The first time the name of I do teach is mentioned in 1994 during my visit in Australia. It is mentioned at the local newspapper in a small town close to Surfers Paradise.
Also I do run just 2 pages on the internet. So for example the british site some guy was mentioning in earlier post is not done by myself.
As a complement I will include a link I got from a friend in august 2010:
How would Urban Combat stand up against MMA or BJJ? Both systems very well established and proven to work in a pressure tested environment.
I've seen so many westerners create so many of their "own arts" 99.9% of it is bullshit.
And a vast majority of that stuff is based on Karate/Judo/Aikido/Kungfu and a plethora of other arts; most of those themselves generally considered ineffective as a self defence systems.
I'm not suggesting that "Urban Combat" is bullshit, I'm just sharing an educated observation formed over a considerable amount of time training. And if I'm honest, I could point you in the direction of a whole group of bullshit martial arts instructors and their websites where they pretty much say the EXACT same lines about how and why they formed their own systems and how it's simple and effective they are for use as self defence yada, yada,yada
A simple fact of life:
There's only so many ways to effectively and successfully induce pain in someone who's being aggressive, pain compliance in its self has a great many variables attached to it's effectiveness as a technique
There's only so many ways to make someone loose their balance.
There's only so many ways you can manipulate the joints of the body - all of them have been explored fully, there's nothing new to be discovered about manipulating joints from a martial arts perspective.
There's only so many ways a human can punch/kick/strike another human being, again all of those have been fully explored
The thing which CAN BE INNOVATIVE in terms of martial arts/self defence is the CONCEPT OF APPLICATION. Unfortunately not many people are able to come up with another concept of how to deliver the techniques and applications within any martial system either new or older. Many people will claim to have achieved this but the reality is very often different.
Honestly I do not know how the Urban Combat stand against BJJ or MMA. However I do not believe it is the goal of self defence.
I have no idea about what UC is and I have never been involved in their training.
What I do mean is that the good system of self defence includs not only effective physical methods / techniques but also things like distraction, verbal tactics, tactical positioning.
Also it should save your as in the court.
Hurting people is simple however you should also be able to explain the use of force while / if in the court. Usually a lot of concepts mention just the physical part of the conflict forgetting the last one.
Fairbairn and Applegate and others who used their concepts during WWII all mention that striking with fist is dangerous and you could injure yur hand. It should be avoided during combat and they recommed chin jab for example.
That knowlegde gained by training and combat during WWII. Still a lot of many " military " combat systems teached by a lot of civilians mention palm strike as one of the major methods.
The knowlrgde could be gained quite fast just by taking a look at the soldiers equipment and than using it during the training.
I do believe after just 1 solid punch to the helmet or other weapons tha practitioner would avoid that.
Also regarding what kind of effective methods could be used by LEO:s.
While on the beat I usually wear about 12-15 extra kilos during the winter time.
Arresting / Fighting / Defending yourself is taken to another level.
Also it is always a question about the individual. The right person, with the right amount of skills, the right attitude, in the right time will be able to convince that his system is the best.
And it matters not if that "reasonable force" was with your bare hands or with a weapon of some description or, if you're trained in martial arts RBSD or [whatever], Providing you were acting in the defence of yourself or someone else using only force which was deemed "reasonable" then the outcome will be favourable.
If you punch me in the face but I stab you back, that's not considered "Reasonable" (Simplistic example I accept but you see my point)
In operational military terms I'm authorised to use lethal force in the defence of myself and others whose lives might be put at immediate risk and there's no other way of preventing that however, I can only fire aimed shots, and only fire enough to stop the individual, any more is considered "unreasonable"
So, my point about including lethal force into this discussion is that it really doesn't matter what you know [in terms of martial arts or self preservation skills] or, what the situational threat is, it's to the extent at which you use or apply those skills which ultimately will be seen as reasonable or unreasonable in a court of law. (In the UK anyway)
If I have to repeatedly punch and kick someone to really stop them from carrying out, say a verbal threat of serious harm against a colleague or family member, that is perfectly justified provided I genuinely and sincerely believed the threat was real and there was no other way of preventing it. It's the application of not only a physical act, but actually more to the point, the application of COMMON SENSE in what you do and how you do it.
I am familiar in use of force in Sweden and also have a brief intro to use of force both in UK and Poland. Both for civilians and Law enforcement.
However I do appreciate your explanation about that.
Still I do believe regarding UC / MMA / BJJ or what ever the system is / it is the matter of an individual behind the concept.
Comparing martial art against martial art has really not much to do with self defence. It is not so often martial artist attack anothe martial artist. Of course we still do have those situations.
Also it looks like we are comming a bit away from the original post from a swedish based people.
Which basicly was to find out if I am police officer at all and if and what kind of crap I do teach.
Are you aware that the US Army last year dropped their fixed bayonet training for their troops? Kind of brings home the point that today's warfare isn't what the general public thinks it is.