This is a general release CQC subject matter file that does not include the specific means and methods version supplied to training members.
Over the past several years I have been conducting research observations of instructed unarmed threat primary practice evasive threat neutralisation employments.
This research has come about as a result of some exponents after being trained in primary evasive practices employing less safe and less effective evasive options in training and to a lesser degree under testing.
The objective of this non-members version of this research information file release is to provide non-member enthusiasts general information on this subject brought about by requests for such information.
Specifically this research study was conducted because of observations identifying some exponent’s executions of secondary and other evasion skills options employments being executed over primary evasion.
Interestingly there has been a considerable component of the research observations undertaken with new entry exponents that have no previous military close combat training or any previous instruction or practice of Todd systems primary secondary or alternative CQC evasion and counter engagement.
It was not viable to include individuals with prior training in civi self-defence styles as the numbers that completed mandatory basic competency training did not equate to the required control group numbers to achieve a general overview and there were only single figures of candidates that had volunteered for testing and even less that had passed.
The primary Todd CQC evasion is the primary option of counter engagement because it provides the best and safest chances of effective threat neutralisation under assault.
It has been tested and proven in training testing and live high risk actions on.
The CQC primary evasive counter engagement option does not only enable clearing of the kill zone/confrontation line but also provides increased counter engagement execution capabilities.
Additionally the primary evasive tradecraft practices employments not only ensured enemy assaults failed to contact with their intended target but also provided safe escape and evasion options if required.
Training the considerable numbers of military close combat exponents, proponents and instructors that we do provides us with a unique opportunity to identify primary skills employment practices as well as employments of less than primary means of evasive counter actions.
The following are abridged/edited findings from our observations of exponents under training and testing.
A number of new entry Basic exponents with no prior close combat training, employed less safe and effective evasive manoeuvres until they identified through their errors of their ways that they were not effective and felt the effects of contact.
There can be multiple reasons for less safe and effective evasive actions employments including the below most common observed and determined reasons.
- Autonomic resistance to moving in the primary evasive direction/manner through a lack of self-belief/self-confidence mental toughness.
- Laziness by looking for an option that required minimum physicality/expedient action.
- Lack of the employment of required combined physical and mental capabilities levels of output to effectively clear the confrontation line/ kill zone by best/safest trade-craft training methods.
- Failure to employ the primary evasion skill major/minor components in correct cohesive order/unison through a lack of smarts/ attention to initiation/execution detail.
- Opting for a similar evasive action variation that had commonality with the primary evasion but did not provide highest levels of safety and threat neutralisation, most likely because the individuals did not possess the mental toughness to do what was required.
- Lacking the willingness required to employ high level physicality/expedient action as a result of not taking complete situational control in their decision making/threat neutralisation response primary evasive counter engagement option employment.
The autonomic reaction combined with deliberate resistance to initiating/executing the proven primary skill identified a lack of self-confidence/mental toughness and to a much lesser degree lower level skills competency.
Laziness and or a lack of confidence in their physical skills execution capabilities was the determined reasoning for exponents opting for a similar but tactically flawed version over the correct best primary instructed option.
Lack of physical and mental capabilities to effectively clear the confrontation line/kill zone can be an indicator of an exponent of less than required intestinal fortitude/inner-resolve. When exponents have been explained to as well as having been demonstrated to and have been trained in and practiced primary evasion and still opt for a less safe less objective achievement proven option it identifies a lack of mental toughness/inner resolve/self-confidence and or a lazy close enough will do attitude/mentality.
These research findings do not involve individuals with disabilities/injuries or through diminished physical capabilities need specific means and methods that provide them with best chance threat neutralisation in regards to their specific capabilities.
These finding were compiled from research/observations of able bodied physically capable male and female exponents/candidates.
Failing to employ the evasive skill with the proper initiator and major/minor components in the correct order of execution can be an identifier of a lack of attention to detail or required skills mastery in the learning/training phases.
A reluctance in the initiation/execution of primary evasive skills components that required expedient action and factors of resistance/stress even though the duration was short and the physicality/resistance factors were minimal accounted to a lazy exponent, not willing or prepared to do what needed to be done to maximise the chances of safe effective objective achievement.
A less than primary trained evasive action execution under assault was primarily determined as an indicator of some exponent’s lack of skills competency or a lack of willingness to initiate/execute the correct primary evasive option as instructed simply out of their personal fears/inadequacies.
Autonomic reactions not being eliminated/controlled through a combatant not being ready willing and capable were uncommon in CQC training and testing where exponents and candidates respectively are aware of the likelihoods and realities of CQC training and testing and had been trained in how to take situational control.
Some did leave it too late by doing nothing or employing less than primary tactics and skills and then finding themselves overwhelmed attempted to do what they should have at the outset only to discover they had lost all opportunity and momentum.
This was considered mainly being a result of not wanting to take immediate primary deliberate action as a result of not wanting to cause injury or get injured. Such individuals had a belief in their capabilities to neutralise the threat by a less effective means even in a kill zone actions on. This is something known in mil CQC as the human factors that must be overridden and replaced with primary deliberate close combatant over kill actions.
Findings overview
Tunnel vision, audio exclusion, self-doubt and perception over factual assessment can all be consequences of a lack of mental toughness/intestinal fortitude to employ what needs to be employed as in primary evasive counter engagement skills.
Instructed secondary alternative or emergency options although of the same system are contingency/situational specific options as instructed, not primary proven best means and methods for sudden aggressive shock actions on evasive counter engagement. Individuals that employed such options when they had time and distance to employ their primary evasive counter engagement option again identified a less than willing commitment in objective achievement even though they knew better.
When exponents know the reasoning behind primary trade-craft threat neutralisation options and have been trained and drilled in them but opt for non-primary means and methods that reduce safe effective threat neutralisation levels/likelihoods, it can be an indicator of a lack of mental toughness/confidence in their physical capabilities and/or a lack of physical capabilities or simply laziness.
Increased enemy party threat levels intensity identified those that were lazy or lacking in mental toughness or skills confidence/competency.
By exposure to sudden aggressive shock actions once they have been drilled in primary tradecraft practices, they soon identified the errors of their ways.
Mental toughness training must prepare and enable the combatant to overcome and override their automated human reactionary self-preservation mechanisms by employing their higher level of combative intelligence deliberate threat neutralisation primary close combat tradecraft practices.
Those that cannot simply did not prove themselves under testing and were removed from the testing phase.
While secondary additional and emergency skills capabilities provide specific situational capabilities to clear the confrontation line and counter engage the enemy, such capabilities are not the best proven primary tradecraft safest means of effective evasive counter engagement objective achievement.
Under observed testing phases the highest ratings and best objective achievement outcomes counter offensively have been achieved by primary evasive counter engagement by considerable.
Those that employed other than the primary evasive counter engagement means and methods failed to achieve the objective of primary practice threat neutralisation and as such were binned as a result of not passing their testing phases requirements.
Mil CQC being primary trade-craft dirty tricks brigade threat neutralisation meant that candidates under testing were not prevented in objective achievement by gender or their physical builds/make ups.
The norm in CQC training is that exponent’s traits/faults/errors will be identified in training and corrected before they are accepted for testing. Those that cannot overcome their fears and do what must be done will know they do not have what it takes to pass testing and will not volunteer or will withdraw from training.
If any individual candidate slipped through the cracks and was accepted for testing that was not up to it they would have every weakness and fault identified under CQC testing. Their intestinal fortitude and CQC smarts/skills competency capabilities in an environment where there is nowhere to hide will be obvious and determine their outcome.
Fortunately under testing candidates are binned/removed immediately on failing to achieve an objective and as such are exposed to the minimum duration under duress.
The unfortunate reality is some individuals cannot be trained to overcome their fears and as such will employ lower level options or no evasive option (freeze) and as such expose themselves to increased risks and dangers.
It really comes down to mastery of foul gross motor destructive skills and 100% mental toughness.
Similarly in close combat team tactics training where combatants must overcome their individual fears and maintain shape (unitism) by maintaining formation and employing primary tactics/skills as per SOPs any individual’s deviations faults/errors including any physical or mental toughness weakness will be immediately identified.
The most important findings of this research was that those that employed correctly executed evasive counter engagement skills effectively and safely neutralised threats at considerably higher percentages than those that utilised other options/variations or options effected by faults/errors.
