12/01/2010 2:34pm, #21
How old is Holloway?
I'm 45 years old with a military career which started in 1983, I’ve trained and served alongside military units both British and Foreign; based on my own experiences, my initial reaction to seeing what Holloway is claiming (before seeing any of his videos) was that he'd be much older.
Has Holloway served in any capacity with the US or Australian Military, has he served in either Iraq, Afghanistan or in the Gulf war ?
Has a FOIA been applied for against any military records ?
Having read his bio on his website, stripping away all the peripheral rubbish about being taught from an early age (jeez how often do you read that statement) the last segment of his website bio is, IMO the most important where, it states he's been involved in these activities for a decade.
Whilst ten years is ten years, it isn't a particularly long period of time in terms of experience. His claim of teaching counter-terror units is laughable and is nothing more than ambiguous BS.
I bet Holloway doesn't know the difference between:
Anti-terrorism and Counter-terrorism.
Just to put some perspective on this:
A few years ago I attended an "anti-terrorist" course which was specific to dealing with one of the most common threats - IED.
This course was delivered by a civilian specialist contracted in because of his extensive knowledge and experience, he was in his 50's a former Metropolitan British Police Commander with 30+ years doing little else but this and other specialist roles.
The certificate is available for validation - just to set the precedence for when we start asking Mr. Holloway for his.
Last edited by Rock Ape; 12/01/2010 2:57pm at ."To sin by silence when one should protest makes cowards out of men".
12/01/2010 2:42pm, #22
He wasn't in the military he is a "Professional Operator". Also, he's Australian not American.
12/01/2010 3:11pm, #23..//..high risk situations/incidents and urban survival for professionals"To sin by silence when one should protest makes cowards out of men".
12/01/2010 3:18pm, #24
12/01/2010 3:18pm, #25
Yeah I get that mate thanks..
What exactly does "Professional Operator" actually mean in his eyes vs. those who are otherwise normally associated with that term, I wonder.
Based superficially on just his age, I suspect the following:
Never been a full time member of any Law Enforcement Agency (with arrest powers or armed carry).
Never served in any Military Armed Force, therefore no experience of warfare, tactical prowess or understanding of the dynamics of armed conflict.
His claims will be ambiguously made and greatly inflated solely based upon his supposed martial arts and or limited firearms experiences.
These are just my suspicions at this point and I look forward to discussing each of them with Mr. Holloway at some point."To sin by silence when one should protest makes cowards out of men".
12/01/2010 3:40pm, #26
Operator /= operative.
I wonder if Holloway knows the difference.
12/01/2010 4:19pm, #27
It has already been pointed out, but his skill set for knife defense is something I see in most beginners. They focus so much on redirect that they forget about getting the hell out of the way in the first place.
Not sure what aspect of claims you want to bust him on. Did he specifically state which law enforcement agency he has trained or trained with?
Side note: I like how he redirects the knife attack to his balls. Thinning the heard at its best.
12/01/2010 4:39pm, #28
Without really having the nerve to watch through all his stuff, the impression I get is that he simply takes weaponless kung fu techniques and adds weaponry to the routine.
Fairly common among most traditional CMA instructors I have trained with so far, and, unless we're talking about traditional weapons, usually complete crap.
12/01/2010 6:37pm, #29
I really want to know where this misconception that members of the armed forces need to learn how to knife fight ?
Seriously why does any major Government invest millions a year training it's troops on technologically advanced ways of gathering intelligence, spending equally large sums of money on advanced forms of weaponry, communications, night vision, small arms, explosives and other pyrotechnical goodness, where death and destruction comes from a press of a button at altitude or, back at some command post... only then to expect it's troops to learn how to fight with the lowest denominator in the scale of how to effective kill your enemy, from some non-military, no-experience nobody ?
Has anyone informed Mr. Holloway that the US Army has abandoned fixed bayonet drills, and the reasoning behind that decision?"To sin by silence when one should protest makes cowards out of men".
12/01/2010 6:38pm, #30
YouTube - REAL GROUND FIGHTS & ESCAPE TRAINING
His disclaimer at the beginning of the video is that it is 'escape training.' He is trying to demonstrate and encourage escape from a mounted position when the person on top is punching non-stop.
My disclaimer: I understand there are a lot of grappling arts with subtle variations in techniques and 'end game' (what you are working towards). There are universal concepts based on physics and physiology which permeate each art though.
At 1:21, he lists his 'objectives': look for the openings (face), pin his body to one side, and then pull/push the arm/head to roll the person on top off of him ('controlling the neck'). His 'objectives' are VERY low-percentage.
1) At no point in the beginning of the video does he advocate use of the hips or disrupting the base of the person on top. This (hip bump / upa / bridge) is VERY fundamental to mount escapes. The bridge motion is one of the strongest motions that the human body is capable of. To not advocate using it in the 'objectives' is a gross oversight. The person on top can't punch if he has to post a hand out to avoid falling over. Later in the video (4:40), he mentions that a 'common tactic' to use against a bigger person is to use the hips. Using it as an 'after thought' or secondary tactic is a horrible strategy.
2) Reaching for the face is ineffective if the person on top is postured up. Later in the video (4:25) he even mentions that the guy couldn't reach his head because he was taller. Overlooking the arm bar for now (which most grappling guys will quickly point out), extending the arm like that only creates a HUGE opening for punches. How can he advocate reaching when half of his defense is compromised? How can he advocate a technique which only works on shorter people?
3) Pulling on the arm at the elbow can help in breaking down the posture of the person on top. It can bring the head within reach if that is your goal. BUT, doing it without the use of the hips to disrupt their base and getting them to post means that you have to commit **2** hands to BEGIN to break down their posture (still low percentage). So now, you have ZERO defense against the person on top's other arm that is still raining down punches and elbows.
4) Pushing the person over to the side won't work, even if you push against their head. The person on top has full use of his core, legs, and upper body. Do you really think that the person on bottom using only their arm/shoulder is going to overcome that? Even if you have their elbow pinned against your chest, you are only using your upper chest. Through this, the person on top still has their base. The physics do not work out.
Watch the encounter at 6:35: his 'objectives' fail, he scoots out from under a leg, tries some sort of 'kick over', turns over, gives up his back, and then brute forces his way over to side control. All the while, he was eating punches. If that wasn't telling, I'm not sure what is.
Memorable Quote: "You can't rely purely on technique. That's bullshit. Its just will, ya know?"
But you have to have the proper technique to give your 'will' a chance. If you don't, you are going to get hurt with the false sense of confidence that bad technique instills.