Quote Originally Posted by Shalak1989 View Post
I came across an old thread about the "Attack Proof" group and something about them not coming through on a challenge or something....

However, I was wondering if anyone had taken a thorough look at the book and could tell me if they believe that their self-defense ideas were valid or not?
I haven't read it for a long time, but I'd say that some of the ideas are valid. For example, teaching a straightforward, basic WW2 combatives system as self defence for people who don't have the time/inclination to commit to long-term training; the emphasis on training for surprise scenarios and not making too many assumptions about "what will happen" in a real assault; the emphasis on co-ordination and balance exercises to support whatever techniques you might be able to pull off in a real fight.