All to often, under CQC testing, we observe candidates employing stationary counter options over the primary evasive counter options. The same can be said of real live actions on encounters especially in unexpected actions on. There several reasons for this selection of an emergency option over a primary option.
In live actions on encounters often it is the sudden surprise actions on nature of the threat and the autonomic reactions under such an immediate close threat that cause static responses. The primitive reptilian reaction in the untrained and unfamiliar with sudden aggressive shock actions may well be to hold ground and fight over clearing the confrontation line. Against a formidable aggressor staying on the contact point increases risk.
Some simply freeze out of the unexpected shock nature of the assault. Some untrained out of autonomic self-preservation flee clearing the confrontation line and escaping further hostilities which is safer than holding the point of contact. This would be a safer option than relying on static reactionary counter attacking or through prior training holding ground on the confrontation line and blocking/defending and counter attacking.
The most dangerous weapon is the one you don’t see, but feel the effects of, and if the aggressor is covertly or deceptively employing a concealed weapon and you choose to hold ground and fight back, the outcome can be life threatening. Often it is being unfamiliar with the realities of unpredictable high-level violence that is an immediate reality check under assault when it is all too late.
The reptilian fight or flight primitive autonomic reactionary capability and the mammalian limbic brain reactionary capability do not have intelligent tactical decision making capabilities and only have prior recollection capabilities based on previous same or similar experiences making the range of threat neutralisation means limited to emergency reactions counter options only.
In testing and training it can be that the exponent is fatigued or just lazy and opts for a means of counter that requires the least physicality. Humans are often lazy by nature, especially when they know they are unlikely to lose life or limb like in training. However, the trained military CQC combatant, who takes training seriously, never trains any other way than how they will conduct themselves under real life live actions on threat. Training the way you intend to go combative at all times is so important to the CQC mind set and primary skills employment.
Some proponents simply cannot assess and decide quickly enough and when taken by surprise flinch and then try and hold ground under assault which increases risk. The Todd Systems of military CQC promote skills that have commonality with autonomic reactions such as the flinch. This enables expedient actions under assault to be achieved from the small half or 3/4 squat status that is a natural extension of the reactionary flinch.
High repetition practice of intelligent battle proven primary CQC trade craft practices until you can’t get it wrong and related muscle memory combined with commonality and cohesion with autonomic primitive reactions to threat increases safety and the chance of threat neutralisation. Using ones intelligent Homo sapiens brain to override the primitive reptilian and mammalian brains is what military CQC proponents train to do.
In counter engagement, this means utilising assessment and decision making tactics to evade by means of footing adjustment setting an expedient evasive action status and hard targeting prior to and during evasion. Immediate post-evasion fast mapping real time threat assessment decision making and under taking counter engagement adjustments immediately prior to threat neutralisation are the required threat neutralisation components for the highly trained and confident combatant.
Another reason for stationary options execution we see especially with practitioners of some traditional fighting arts styles is simply that they consider holding ground to be a primary option. I have seen all to many individuals that are lazy or trained in techniques that promote standing one’s ground under assault get overwhelmed by the momentum of the contact as well as the effects of the experienced strikes or kicks. Once they are down or on the back foot under assault, threat neutralisation is that much more difficult, risk is increased, safety reduced and chances of threat neutralisation decrease.
Some, through not knowing better, take a wide deep stance, try traditional power blocking methods and fall victim to a foe that is very different to their studio training partner. If they have not experienced the realities of bare fists head contact before, the realities can be devastating.
I can remember seeing, in the 70s and 80s, when some traditional practitioners were experimenting with cross training with combat sports stand up fighters and them sparring young boxers and as soon as the combinations found their target especially head targeting the reality check was immediate and the myth of some black belts practical cpabilities exposed. Some that have trained in such stand, hold your ground and block methods will realise immediately under serious assault their inadequacies forget all their training in a flash and rely on their primitive reactions or worse give in and give up by freezing or turning their back on the threat including falling to the ground curling up in a foetal position with their back to their aggressor and doing nothing.
Some train in techniques that are flawed for military or civilian self defence against a formidable aggressor and although they must know so just settle for such capabilities. Others believe what they have been told and think they can take care of themselves and find out when it is all too late under serious assault they cant. Others are not confident in the techniques they practice, but make out they are and then when confronted with the threat of impending violence melt and give up or under assault do nothing including turning their back on the threat and pay the price. It comes back to being honest with your self in relation to your capabilities and inner resolve to neutralise formidable violent aggressors.
You should always use your intelligence to defeat your enemy over increasing risk by allowing unnecessary contact. Those that psychologically know they are not confident or competent to neutralise formidable violence, but proclaim they are or are prepared to settle with inadequate capabilities possibly based on the presumption that they will never find themselves in a hostile situation are fools.
