This blog is about the notable differences between myself and my long-term assistant instructors and proponents of CQC from yesteryear and the majority of entry level exponents of today.
Back in the 70s and 80s the number of highly committed exponents was considerably more than today. I know personally I worked multiple jobs including running my own business to fund my training-related expenses including between the mid 80s and late 90s traveling overseas annually often multiple times to train and qualify. I committed myself completely to the pursuit of military CQC achievement of competency and instructor qualification at considerable personal sacrifice and expense. I knew the career path I was pursuing and I had confidence in my abilities to achieve and make my commitment, my lifestyle and source of income. This was at a time when military unarmed combat had a very low profile and full-time professional instructors simply were few and far between. I knew to be the best I could be I needed to be trained by the very best out there.
My dedicated senior ranks were all by nature individuals with high commitment to their CQC training and instructing. Many of them traveled internationally with me undertaking training or assisting me as instructors on exported courses of instruction. They were supportive of the many projects I undertook and could be relied on not only when needed but week in and week out year after year. Time and money was never a problem and never did they complain or ask for discount or exemptions. They accepted challenges without question stepping up and proving themselves as quietly confident and fully committed proponents of close quarters combat. They understood that training was a privilege and required exemplary conduct and behavior and that their support of our specialist minority training was important to future proof our specialist training systems.
Today, however, a considerably lower number of individuals possess the attributes and attitudes of the majority of serious committed proponents of yesteryear. You can blame it on the economy, world recessions, hectic schedules, lifestyles, family and finances, but the reality is the training is reasonably inexpensive by comparison to many sports and hobbies and requires considerably less training hours than sporting codes.
Many of the serious proponents of yesteryear were involved in jobs that required high level physicality such as farming, the meat works, forestry, and building trades. Many of them played rugby or rugby league were involved with hunting and fishing, surf lifesaving, power lifting and weightlifting and still had plenty of time for their close quarters combat training and plenty of energy commitment and enthusiasm.
Many entry-level exponents today are seeking soft, easy options and when the going gets tough they quickly disappear. Many are not prepared to commit to the required training hours or volunteer for test phases for fear of failure because deep down they know they are not as strong willed as they make out. Many think combative training is something that can be learnt without challenging themselves and maintained without continuation training. How wrong they are when up against exponents that have put in the hard yards ,are mentally tough, and have achieved superior competency.
Some like the sound and thought of military CQC training and enquire or even apply with no intention of fronting up. For others the reality of the required effort and commitment simply self identifies their weaknesses and they give up before they really have got started. One thing has never changed and that is the fact that those that have the inner resolve and desire to achieve CQC advancement do so and by the nature of the training and testing those that do not possess what it takes identify themselves and disappear or look for excuses why they cannot continue. They are fooling no one and their peers are well aware of their lack of commitment and determination and will to achieve.
The paper hounds, soft options and political pass seeking type individuals seem to be far more prevalent than back in the days of the Baldock Institute between the 1920s and the 1980s and the early days of the Todd Group. Possibly changes in times, types of employment, studies requirements, and finances may well have some bearing on these realities, but more so I believe it is the high-tech age and less and less exponents coming from off the land or hard manual work combined with playing sports like rugby or rugby league or competing in boxing and wrestling.
Less time. greater travel time, higher living expenses and many more reasons or excuses can be found to not follow through with what they have started but the reality is individuals that are made of the right stuff and have the burning desire to pursue combative excellence will do so. There just seems to be a lot less of these types in relation to the rest.
There are a lot more styles systems and codes out there today however military CQC training provided by a military Master Instructor would be one of if not the least available types of available training available for self-defence. This really identifies the reality that those with the smarts who have done their research and won’t settle for anything less than true military close quarters combat instructed by or under the command of a military qualified CQC Master Instructor will seek out such training and commit to it. Another reason for far less willing committed proponents could be training providers of easy training options and promotion without having to really prove oneself.
The old military adage “from the rest comes the best” is simply very true in relation to military close quarters combat and one trained, tested, proven and qualified proficient proponent is worth all those that are not and do not have what it takes. If standards are not set and maintained safety and threat neutralization is compromised.
