To get good at martial arts you also need to train solo. There is something about working on the mental and physical aspects of martial arts alone which pushes things around in your brain and makes them stick. You do not get good in class, class is the catalyst that starts the reaction – you get good in solo practice and reflection.

I want to offer up my couch potato plan for getting good at your martial art – even if you think you don’t have time.

The first part of the plan is to make an enjoyable game out of finding hidden time. One thing I suggest is to do some kind of training during TV commercials. If you watch 1 hour of network television a day (and most people watch more), you’ll have at least 20 minutes of training time. You could exercise during that time, practice a kata, throw some punches, whatever.

Like I said, make finding time an enjoyable game – even a couple of minutes here and there really add up.

Another TV related training method which helps reaction time is to do a technique (such as throwing a punch) while watching a show – as quickly as possible each time the scene or camera angle changes on the show. This is a good way to train the perception without a partner.

The next suggestion is to utilize waiting time, and I have two ways to do this. 1. Carry around a martial arts related book with you whenever you think you might have wait time and read. 2. Practice your techniques, or kata, or whatever in your mind without moving. Suggestion #2 will get you good incredibly fast.

When I lived in Boston I would frequently take the subway or a bus. While sitting there, I would  mentally go over foot movements, angles, drills, etc. It really helped me to improve. The mind has a hard time differentiating between vividly imagined practice and real practice. I probably got an extra 5 hours of practice a week in just doing this.

My next suggestion is to find sneaky ways to train. Make all of your movements martial movements without giving away what you are doing. For example, I use tai-sabaki (body shifting) movements to walk around obstacles. I am aware of how I open and close doors and do it in a way that could be translated into a strike or a throw. Doing this will help internalize your movements and burn them into muscle memory. Again – make a game out of it – be creative.

Next is walking around training. When walking around amongst other people mentally note their distance. Notice how you feel as they get closer or move farther away. What are they doing with their hands. If they are standing, do they have good balance or poor balance. Are there any bulges in their clothing that may be weapons. If they had bad intentions, how would they have to move to attack. Do this without staring at anybody. Train yourself to use peripheral vision and short non-threatening glances.

Finally is mental scenario training. Whenever you go anywhere – including changing rooms in your house, scan the room. Look for exits and notice if there are any obstacles there. What in the room could be used as cover or as an improvised weapon? What would you do if armed people came in intent on doing you harm. While you do this pay attention to your breathing and heart-rate. Keep your breathing slow and through the nose.

The important thing is to make these things as enjoyable as possible. If you do, it will be easier to continue doing them.

First the 70% statistic may or may not be accurate. I got it from a trusted source, and when I asked him for his source – he had legitimately lost his notes – but pointed me in to a couple of places where it may have come from. I’m still looking. That number includes blades carried for work purposes, multi-tools, and pocket knives. It seems like a reasonable number in my experience. A recent Gallup poll said that 11% of Americans responded that they carried knives for self defense, and that number was higher among men than women.

I was using the statistic the way statistics are often used – to convince people to take action. That action was to get some training in how to handle edged weapon assault. Attacks with edged weapons are fairly frequent in the U.S. and that includes the use of swords and machetes. Knives are very common. Let’s be clear that I am not selling training at this point, and am not using that statistic to scare people for my own personal gain. The real question about the value of the number is this – would following the interpretation of the statistic and getting some training be a good thing? I believe it would.

There are two potentially big issues with the use of statistics: 1. bad data, and 2. flawed interpretation.

Bad data can mean that the statistic is totally false – that  the resulting data is just made up. This is frequently the case, and I’ll talk about a pervasive lie about self defense in a minute.

With statistics generated from studies or surveys, errors in data can creep in from sampling or how questions are posed. There are mathematical formulas that tell researchers how large a random sample  of a population they must survey or test before their results cannot be attributed merely to chance. If you interview one guy in the United States and that guy happens to be Charles Manson – your data set isn’t going to represent the attitudes of the general population very well. The issue here is getting a truly random sample. Political polls aren’t random, they only poll people who are willing to answer polls – not necessarily those who may vote.

The other issue comes from the way questions are asked in surveys and polls. Look at these two questions: 1. Do you carry a knife? and 2. Do you ever carry edged tools for work or for other reasons including box cutters, knives, multi-tools, or the like? – People are likely to answer those two questions differently. People may be more likely to lie when there is a social stigma attached to the question. I’m aware of a survey done about butter consumption where rephrasing a question swung the results by around 15%.

In my opinion, one of the most commonly held misconceptions in self defense or martial arts is that all fights wind up on the ground, or 95%, or 80% or whatever number you’ve heard. Any number you hear in this regard is most likely completely made up (in other words – crap). This number has been actively promoted by people selling ground fighting systems. It sounds very authoritative, logical, and gives you something actionable to do.

There are only two studies that I am aware of. One study conducted by the LAPD before they designed their newest defensive tactics curriculum showed that in around 60% of hands-on use of force incidents, both the officer and suspect wound up on the ground. This is not only far less than 90%, but if you interpret use of force as an officer trying to take a suspect to the ground to facilitate cuffing – this sheds even more light.

Another study analyzed “street fight” videos uploaded to Youtube – which is not an analysis of all street fights – merely of the ones uploaded to Youtube. The results of this study showed that far less than 50% of fights analyzed wound up with both opponents on the ground. It also showed that the first person to go to the ground nearly always fared worse. Regardless, the term “street fight” does not imply self defense to me – just unsanctioned mutual combat.

So, let’s weigh the statistic on the scale of more good than harm. If you were to believe that all fights (100%) wound up on the ground, and so that you only learned ground fighting for self defense would that be a good thing or a bad thing?  If the statistic is wrong, and you faced an opponent who knew how to keep off the ground, or multiple opponents, or someone with a weapon – that could be a very very bad thing.

So let’s say that we have a rigorously controlled study with good data, and we generate some statistics from that, what could go wrong? Well, even more insidious is the misinterpretation, or deliberately false interpretation of what the data represents. Misuse of statistics in this way is rampant in media and politics..

I once read an article on a newspaper’s web site that had the headline, “study shows that people who own guns are more likely to be murdered.” Really? No. The paper quoted a study that showed that the rate of gun ownership was higher in areas with a high murder rate. To even approach this interpretation, the study would have had to compare gun ownership amongst murder victims – it did not. Just as easily it could have been interpreted as people living in high crime areas feel the need to arm themselves for self-protection, but this would also be false as the study didn’t look at motivation for gun ownership.

So what is a good way to look at statistics?

Let’s take a statistic about sexual assault among college-aged women in the U.S. In some studies it is shown that there is alcohol consumption by either the assaulted or the criminal or both in 70% of reported cases of sexual assault. Without getting into the validity of the statistic, could we safely assume that it’s a good idea for young women to be careful both about their own alcohol consumption as well as being cautious about others around them who are consuming alcohol? Seems pretty reasonable. Could we assume that women who don’t drink have nothing to be concerned about? No, absolutlely not.

Universally, police and self defense experts warn people never to let a criminal take you to a second crime scene. After an abduction, the chances of an abductee surviving drop to almost zero. I do not believe this is in any way an urban myth and I believe the advice to be sound. We don’t know how many of the people who go missing every year are abducted, or how many survive that abduction. From the crimes we know about over time – this advice stands up.

Look to statistics in self defense with an air of skepticism, and think about the consequences of their interpretation.

First, this is to take nothing away, or in any way insult BJJ, MMA, the UFC, or anyone who teaches, studies, or competes in those systems. I do not denigrate other systems or teachers as a rule. However, and person that claims that one martial art is superior to another is either ignorant or intentionally misleading people. There is no such martial art – never has been, never will be. I’d like to share a video that I think highlights this:

What you’ll see here is some of America’s most skilled combative athletes going to experience some of the U.S. Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP). The most interesting section, to me, is where the UFC guys go to do an exercise called “The Last of the Mohicans.”

Holding a weapon and suited up in armor, they are to run a distance and face multiple opponents who are likewise armed. There are no rules, their goal is to “kill” their opponents. In the video presented, you’ll see a couple of the guys just freeze up until their Marine escort yells at them to attack. Once they begin to attack they are usually taken out by a second assailant.

One of the participants, talking to the camera, admits that he went 4 times and didn’t survive a single encounter. Does this mean that these guys suck? No, not at all.

What you have is people (both Marines and UFC guys) who train specifically to achieve certain goals, under certain conditions, in a certain environment, with certain rules. They are both the best at what they do. However, take a UFC guy and remove him from the ring, eliminate his rules, give him gear he isn’t used to carrying, and face him against multiple opponents and weapons – his skills will only translate so far. Take a Marine who is the best at what he does and throw him into the UFC, give him rules, change his environment and his opponent – again, he’ll only do so well.

Specificity is the key. Martial skills only generalize so far. Want to defend against a knife? Better train that. Want to defend against multiple opponents? You better train that. Do you want to be a good sport fighter? Train that sport.

Arguments over which style is the best have been going on for decades. It’s a waste of time. You should understand why you are training, and make sure you focus on that.

It’s a good idea not to box a boxer, or wrestle a wrestler, or out-kick a Muay Thai kickboxer. So, what should you do if faced with someone with greater skill, or speed?

One thing that neutralizes a great deal of speed and skill is proximity. Move in as close as you can. In our practice I tell students to try to wear your opponent like a suit. This takes a little bit of courage as beginners usually like to create greater distance. As a beginner distance is probably your friend, it does take some skill to move in on an attacking person.

The thing about boxers, kickers, even grapplers is that they are all most effective in the range their tools are designed for. We like to be even closer than grappling range.

What? Isn’t grappling range as close as possible? Not really. Yes grappling frequently involves body to body contact, but you can neutralize most takedowns and throws by eliminating space even farther and melding your bodyweight onto your opponents. I’ve done it with judo players, MMA guys, and wrestlers.

Once you’re inside this range, you should have an arsenal of very close combat tools – flesh tearing, joint locking,eye poking, etc. Knees and elbows become tools of choice.

Let’s be clear – the martial arts I teach are 100% geared towards self defense. The people who come and train with me week in and week out get very good at purse self defense very fast. However, I can’t teach a 1 1/2 hour seminar the same way I teach the people who train with me 4 hours a week for years. The main issue is time. What kind of training can I impart in a very short 1 1/2 hour class?

To toot my own horn – I can teach awesome advice, strategies, and techniques in 1 1/2 hours that can save lives. Over the years I have boiled down a curriculum to a complete array of useful tools. Yes, I mentioned the “t” word – technique. This is the big difference between my regular classes and the one-off seminars – I focus on several high-value techniques. There just isn’t the time to teach concepts and principles and have people go through the exercises to internalize them.

The students in my seminars will get some very important concepts and principles as part of the teaching, and I have sneaky ways of getting people to learn them without learning. Most “the 10 deadliest moves to win any street fight” type courses you can buy off the Internet teach a set of “unstoppable” techniques – most rehash the same old stuff over and over.

For the technique approach to work with beginners in a seminar setting the techniques must be:

• versatile – able to work from various angles, under different types of attacks etc.
• large muscle movement based – small muscle groups and complex motor skills will not function correctly under stress
• easy – the techniques must not require extreme balance, flexibility, or coordination
• stackable – the techniques must leave room for follow-up techniques, suicide throws and the like are not great
• simple – one or two steps, large target areas, etc.

When I teach in the seminar setting the teaching must be fun, fast paced, but still allow room to inculcate the skills I want to impart. I’ve developed some teaching methods which I have found maximize retention and understanding in a short time.

In our school of Ketsugo Jujutsu, as taught be Peter Freedman, sensei – we recognize three levels of kuzushi – mental, physical, and spiritual.

Physical kuzushi is where the jujutsuka (practitioner of jujutsu) does something to take an opponent’s physical balance – which can often lead to a fall, takedown, or throw. Sometimes kuzushi means that an opponent must take a step or otherwise move to regain balance – which may create an openening for another attack. There are many ways of creating a  physical kuzushi – pushing, pulling, bumping, locking, striking, kicking, or merely moving out of the way at the last moment.

Mental kuzushi is the act of creating confusion in one’s opponent (mental unbalance) causing their mind to slow and thus their reactions. Mental kuzushi may be caused through trickery, words, confusing phsyical techniques, hidden strikes, etc.

When we talk about spirit, this is more akin to “fighting spirit” than the religious sense of the word. We are talking about emotion. Spiritual kuzushi causes emotional unbalance, frequently sapping the will to fight, or causing rash action. An example might be causing an opponent to bleed or pointing out that they are bleeding. In a multiple attacker scenario, sometimes taking out the “alpha” attacker takes the fighting spirit of the rest of the group. Extreme pain can also be a spiritual kuzushi.

A single defense against an attack may encompass all three types of kuzushi. When an opponent strikes, let’s say we shift out of the way at the last moment. Our movement may cause the opponent to off-balance himself physically. We may land a hidden strike which, combined with our last minute shift, may confuse him. And, he may grow angry, upset, or even frightened that his attack didn’t work and he’s now in unexpected pain – a spiritual kuzushi.

Let me make this abundantly clear: Until you internalize and intuitively understand range, memorizing a bunch of ranges will be no good in combat. Knowing that your striking range is 28 inches is no good, if you can’t instantly look at your opponent and understand whether or not you can strike without conscious thought. There is only one cure, simplification and practice.

I have simplified my range system into three basic ranges – long, medium, and short range. Why? Because at each of these ranges – choice of tactics changes. Breaking these ranges down any further makes no difference to the way we practice. Here are my definitions.

Long range: At long range, none of your body parts (or your opponent’s) are immediately available to attack without closing the distance. In other words, for your opponent to attack you, he will need to move towards you in some way.

Medium range: Medium range begins where, if you and your opponent were to outstretch your arms, your fingertips would touch. Since every part of the body can attack or be attacked, we are no longer in long range. The limit of medium range is reached when you are able to touch the torso of your opponent.

Short range: Once you are able to touch an opponents body or head area, you are in short range. Short range would include grappling and close combat distance in other systems.

Now, I can hear many people saying – “but that would mean that each range changes as different weapons are used.” You bet. Long range for a sword is different from a kick or a punch. Missile weapons, such as firearms, are really the only exceptions that don’t fit well into this system.

So the next criticism might be, “well then you have to memorize a bunch of ranges for different weapons.” Yes, and no, but mostly no. Remember, the idea is to have a little bit of knowledge and then internalize the principles. You need to intuitively know when you’re inside medium range of someone holding a stick, knife or broken bottle. There are no shortcuts here, you must practice with opponents empty handed and holding different weapons. And, by the way, you would be surprised at the number of sword and machete attacks in the U.S. every year, so don’t count out long blades even for reality-based training.

Your tactics at each of these ranges will depend on your style. If you want to learn ours, you need to come train with us.

Modern neuroscience has shown that there is approximately a half second delay between a stimulus, and a person becoming consciously aware of that stimulus. To put that into perspective, a Major League Baseball batter must swing and hit a pitch before his conscious mind has told him it’s been thrown. This has a number of implications.

1. It is indeed possible to train your body/mind to react appropriately to a stimulus before conscious perception. If it wasn’t, baseball wouldn’t exist, sword fights would always be won by the first person to swing, and driving a car would not be possible (especially in Boston)
2. Some reality based systems are based wholly on what to do from a position you find yourself in upon flinching. They propose that the reflexive system cannot be retrained to react in any other way. While there is merit to their training, their supposition cannot be true. Reflexes indeed can be trained to react in strong and appropriate ways.
3. I believe that removing conscious clutter through meditative practice makes us faster, smoother, better martial artists. There is less neural competition.

So, train with this in mind (or out of your mind). Center, breath, let go.

The concept is this: you dedicate most of your training time to the mission at hand. The mission consists of a goal, likely obstacles, and a likely environment.

For an LEO, a goal may be to effect an arrest on a resisting suspect. Subgoals would include, not getting injured, and not injuring the suspect. Likely scenarios may include a traffic stop outdoors at night (environment). Obstacles may include cars, other people, a curb, etc. It makes sense to simulate the mission as closely as possible – low light, obstacles, resisting suspect etc.

Now the important part of Mission Centric Training is – the mission dictates the tactics. Given our law enforcement example above, does it make sense to training in neck breaking or fast-drawing a sword? Of course not. Not that there is anything wrong with those teachings, and other training can certainly make a person more well-rounded. But the idea here is, dedicate the most effort in training to the mission at hand.

In the case of law enforcement, where liability is a large concern, it doesn’t make sense to focus on military style combative tactics. Lethal empty-hands tactics do have their place in a law enforcement arsenal, but it’s just not the major focus.

For civilians, the main focus on self defense should be on effecting an escape. Civilian self defense boils down to one essential mission concept -  move from an area of less safety to an area of greater safety. Civilians are not duty bound to face enemy combatants of effect arrests. This mission concept allows civilians the tactical flexibility for everything from running away, locking oneself in a safe room, using less lethal force to disable an attacker, or using lethal force.

Civilians are most likely to encounter threats of violence in and around their car, at their workplace, and in their home. Planning tactics around these environments is essential.

Keep in mind, Mission Centric Training takes nothing away from traditional or sports martial arts practice. If your sport is MMA, it makes perfect sense to train in MMA rules, with MMA trained opponents, inside an MMA ring. If your mission is spiritual development, you choose a martial art that focuses on that. However, do not confuse either with necessary self-defense training. Cross-training is a great idea.

In our art, and all others I am aware of, people who are really good practice fundamentals often. Take boxing, for example, there are only four basic punches – jab, cross, hook, and uppercut. Imagine the beginning boxer learning these four fundamental strikes in about a half an hour, now knowing that he has mastered all the “techniques” of boxing, and expect to enter the ring with a pro. That is a recipe to get killed.

However, go to the gym of a pro boxer, and what do you see them practicing? Jab, cross, hook, uppercut. You’ll see them doing a lot of conditioning, sparring, and jumping rope. Footwork will be basic, and sparring sessions will contain the same elements.

Why would a pro need to practice fundamentals every day?

There is a big difference between understanding how to throw a punch, and internalizing the action of punching so much that you no longer have to think about it. At a high level of skill the punch just happens, the timing is perfect, the targeting is spot on. This is not something which can be grasped intellectually, it is a visceral understanding.

Bruce lee once said, “I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.” Why? Because a master of that one kick could deliver it powerfully, without thought, so fast you couldn’t see it coming, and plant it on a vital target.

At the highest levels of martial practice we have the concept of “mushin” or empty-mind. This means, basically, proper action at the proper time with the interference of thought. It is instinctive action. Whether you are swinging a sword, throwing a kick, or evading a charging grappler – you simply do what’s right without thinking, “I wonder what I should do here.”

The only path to get there is intense meditative practice of fundamental movements.