I have observed and been exposed to individuals and their developed techniques, or should I say variations of other techniques when it comes to CQC, for over 40 years. Some of the individuals have been proponents I have personally trained in CQC.
The unfortunate general concern is that mostly these individuals have not come up through the ranks and been instructed in tactics and skills development testing, proving and adopting SOPs, or they simply have not achieved the required competency to develop skills and need a reality check.
I have found more often than not influences other than military CQC usually of a competitive code type of practice are the foundation of the techniques they have simply changed not invented.
Often when they excitedly show me what they have come up with and I point out the risks dangers flaws and reduction in the chances of threat neutralization than the current battle proven-employed primary method of threat neutralization they are embarrassed to say the least.
They forget rule number 1: there has to be a very good reason for developing a replacement skill.
That is why there is a process and a director of training and doctrine excellence.
Exposing their life support bodily vitals to increased risk, taking the enemy on over the primary CQC modus operandi of taking them out, taking their eyes off the immediate danger in weapon disarming to focus solely on environment under immediate threat, thinking sweeping, tripping, reaping for CQC over stamping, not taking into consideration battledress body armour and webbing and the list of negatives in these adaptions goes on.
Proof of some knowledge being dangerous when the individual cannot even remember the principles of military CQC and is so egotistical about wanting to be known for developing something they forget about battlefield users life or death realities.
