The unforgiving dagger is always loaded and lethal

Skills for self-defence and unarmed combat need to provide high-level chances of maintaining safety in the achievement of threat neutralisation under deadly assault situations.

History didn’t always get it right and some traditional techniques instructed under self-defence training have been proven to be doomed to failure.

To continue to instruct skills that are a high risk of failing under serious assault shows a disregard for the duty of care when training people to defend themselves or a lack of knowledge and expertise in the provision of the required skills to neutralise today’s high level violent threats.

The reasoning may well be a simple lack of knowledge of skills that are more proven better options in self-defence situations for threat neutralisation.

It may well be a failure to accept the fact of the matter that the self-defence techniques that you were taught and have practiced and instructed for decades are far from the best means to stop violent attackers.

Whether it is an integrity issue, ego issue, or an unwillingness to accept you got it wrong and others got it right, there should be no excuses for providing anything less than the best possible means of self-protection training that provide the highest chances of defeating a formidable foe.

Common sense and smarts must prevail in primary self-defence and close combat skills testing, proving and selection. Why would any instructor of high level expertise and high integrity instruct skills that are flawed and unsafe when used against dangerous violent attackers?

The Todd Group doctrine and excellence modus operandi with skills selection is to test skills to destruction to ensure they are the best means of objective achievement for the specific purpose roles duties and usages. This practice ensures understudies are armed with the best tools of threat neutralisation.

Mil CQC Master-Instructors at the Todd Group have learnt how to develop mil and civi threat neutralisation skills and identify dangerous practices by trade-craft evaluation.

To attempt to develop skills for combat or mil self-defence without the required extensive specialist training expertise, experience and qualifications again identifies integrity and character issues.

While unarmed threat neutralisation skills are not 100 percent guaranteed and while there is usually more than one way of achieving threat neutralisation, instructing skills that are high risk dangerous tactically flawed of no to low level objective achievement likelihood under violent threat is unacceptable in my opinion.

How many instructors that instruct static double arm skills against knives would actually have the intestinal fortitude and competency to try such techniques against a razor sharp blade like those below being thrust and retracted or wielded with ruthless unpredictable commitment by an aggressor trying to kill them?

Todd dispatchet,grey/black and green role blades

Just think about what such a razor sharp point/edge would do to your tendons and arteries let alone your internal organs.

Your chances of disarming and neutralising such an armed threat using static crossed arm techniques will be practically zero if not zero when up against a formidable ruthless unpredictable armed aggressor.

There are reasons why in wrestling compound grip head holds like the full Nelson are not permitted.

The reasoning is simple; they put the spinal cord at risk.

And yet some instructors believe simply by dropping down ground ward and raising your arms skyward they can safely and effectively escape the full Nelson.

If you always consider your foe, stronger, fitter, faster, highly skilled and bent on causing grievous bodily harm, to drop down raise your arms when your head is being driven forward and downward by means of a compound grip on the back of the head is tactically flawed and potentially suicidal.

The full-nelson being employed in mil amphib CQC training

The previous are but two high risk commonly instructed techniques instructed to counter edged weapon threats and escape from the full Nelson.

Lethal mil battlefield CQC take out skills employed with forced velocity are unforgiving take no prisoners actions and if there is any chance of counter actions being successful the counter actions skills must be the best of the best.

The violent street thug will not stick to any rules of fair play and will do anything they have to do to harm you and will do it with maximum bad intent and destructive force.

If your capabilities are not up to dealing with such levels of violence and you have not undergone the realism of violent actions on training exercises, then your chances of winning are low and your likelihood of being a surviving victim of assault are high.

Being inoculated against the effects of fear and CQC contact combined with mental toughness training are the difference between winning and losing life and death.

All the skills in the world without the required mental toughness required to neutralise a formidable enemy amount to nothing.

Never fool yourself of how capable you are or how effective your techniques are if you know otherwise or have doubts.

Only a fool would do such and put their life at risk.

If instructors with character issues or agendas will not change the eras of their ways to provide their understudies with better, safer, more proven means of self-protection, then let’s hope understudies have the ability to decide whether the instructed skills would work or not against a violent aggressor.

Often the problem with civilian self-defence training is the blind belief in the instructor standing in front of training group instructing less than best practices for the purpose of self-protection.

Even worse is those that claim to be instructors of military CQC/MSD that would be prepared to instruct mil pers in less than current proven primary mil trade-proven CQC tactics and skills when in an actions on it can come down to life or death.

The other problem is choreography in relation to set or predictable training threats and controlled studio situations where the enemy Pers and their employed threats are nothing like the realities of serious street violence.

Running around tapping one and other thinking these actions would stop a violent aggressor is so far removed from reality.

Unfortunately so many people believe what they see in movies demonstrations and in controlled training would work for them in real life actions on encounters.

The most current of proven self-protection skills must come from living packages where individual tactics and skills are adopted for the capability to stay at the forefront of the most current violent threats.

The training packages comprise of living progressive selected skills to provide the best chances of quick threat neutralisation at present times and in the immediate future.

Violent threats and combative/fighting trends demand constant threat evaluations and the development and selection of the most current and proven threat neutralisation capabilities.

This is the modus operandi of European military close quarter’s combat and military self-defence unarmed tactics and skills at the Todd Group.

To put on your blinkers when it comes to the most effective means of enemy stopping for mil self-defence and mil CQC is never the practice of the highly qualified Mil CQC Master-Chief Instructor when it comes to providing our under studies with our highest level threat neutralisation capabilities.

CQC training course joining and Mil CQC on-line on-line magazine www.toddgroup.com and www.cqctimes.com