Hand Combat Equal Importance to Firearm Training?

[JustinJ]

Hand to hand are good skills to have but in reality no matter how good you are there will be lots of people who are better. There are after 7 billion people on this planet. No matter how good somebody is at fighting they ain't bullet proof. I think the best hand to hand moves one should learn are defensive in nature that allow one to create distance and position to draw a weapon without it being taken away.

 

[robinkevin]

Hand to hand are good skills to have but in reality no matter how good you are there will be lots of people who are better. There are after 7 billion people on this planet. No matter how good somebody is at fighting they ain't bullet proof. I think the best hand to hand moves one should learn are defensive in nature that allow one to create distance and position to draw a weapon without it being taken away.

So if someone attacks you trying to take your wallet for say, you think it's better to get enough distance to draw and shoot them rather then handle the attack with non lethal force?

It's true that there is always someone better but most criminals aren't wasting their time in training as they already think they are the baddest that ever walked. There may be exceptions to this but in general good training can give you the upper hand against the normal criminal.

I mean the big question is at which point do you say "I am going to shoot this guy." At the first signs of aggression, the first display of attack, the first sight of a weapon... Or do you just wait till you are getting your rear kicked and draw and shoot the guy and say it was the only defense you had?

 

[oldguy870]

Everything has it's place. Most people who say hand to hand is not important don't have hand to hand skills.

You don't have to be perfect. You just have to be better than the guy attacking you.

My opinion is that hand to hand is MORE important than gun skills. You can teach a person to shoot in a weekend. It takes much longer to develop hand to hand skills that really work.

 

[JustinJ]

So if someone attacks you trying to take your wallet for say, you think it's better to get enough distance to draw and shoot them rather then handle the attack with non lethal force?

Trying to take my wallet how? I assume you mean by trying to pry it away by hand in which case it sort of depends on the attacker. If he's trying to take my wallet how do i know he wont escalate to full on assault? In said case i feel i'm justified to draw if i feel there is a good chance i can't handle the guy in hand to hand combat. Drawing does not mean i have to fire unless he escalates things at that point. Case law in my state makes me feel quite confident i would be in the clear to draw in said case unless i have a clear disparity of force with my hands.

It's true that there is always someone better but most criminals aren't wasting their time in training as they already think they are the baddest that ever walked. There may be exceptions to this but in general good training can give you the upper hand against the normal criminal.

How do you know the one attacking you doesn't? As far as i'm concerned real world fighting experience is far more benefitial than the level of hand to hand most people receive. Aggression can defeat skill.

I mean the big question is at which point do you say "I am going to shoot this guy." At the first signs of aggression, the first display of attack, the first sight of a weapon... Or do you just wait till you are getting your rear kicked and draw and shoot the guy and say it was the only defense you had?

The problem is that if you are getting your rear kicked it is likely very risky to draw.

 

[mljdeckard]

I'm 100% with Justin here. No one is just going to 'take' my wallet if they are unarmed. If they assault me to try to take it, the deadly force light comes on, I won't be using less than that. If I was interested in taking my chances on the hope that the guy attacking me isn't as good as I am, I wouldn't carry a gun at all.

If they aren't wasting time in training for hand to hand, they aren't wasting time on the range or learning weapon retention either.

Maybe old men aren't as fast or as strong as young men, but at the same time, some old men got to be old because they earned it. I grew up with an old marine who was 90% disabled. But at one time, he was also world class in Jiu Jitsu. He wasn't afraid of anyone. An old farmer I grew up with could free-throw hay bales at 70 that I could barely lift as a teenager. Several years ago Gene Hackman made headlines when a young guy tried to start something with him over a traffic accident. He put the guy face down on the sidewalk. Don't assume anything about your opponents.

 

[robinkevin]

Trying to take my wallet how? I assume you mean by trying to pry it away by hand in which case it sort of depends on the attacker. If he's trying to take my wallet how do i know he wont escalate to full on assault? In said case i feel i'm justified to draw if i feel there is a good chance i can't handle the guy in hand to hand combat. Drawing does not mean i have to fire unless he escalates things at that point. Case law in my state makes me feel quite confident i would be in the clear to draw in said case unless i have a clear disparity of force with my hands.

Justified, you would be and I would not argue with someone that did but rather might just shake my head. Why should we be so quick to shoot and possibly take the life of another human even if they are doing wrong? In the number of fights I been in which the attacker was hurt I usually am upset that I had to cause them harm. I dare not to think of how I will feel if I am force to kill someone but I surely hope that it was a last resort or I was guarding my home front in which I feel no chances should be taken.

How do you know the one attacking you doesn't? As far as i'm concerned real world fighting experience is far more benefitial than the level of hand to hand most people receive. Aggression can defeat skill.

Not so... I don't care if you had been in a dozen fights. People who train hard usually go and beat the crap out of each other at least one night a week. You learn to take a hit and avoid being hit. Aggression in my experience usually leads to sloppiness in which makes for a easily defeated opponent.

The problem is that if you are getting your rear kicked it is likely very risky to draw.

True... but it's been done. Too often the life of a person can be spare simply by either avoiding the fight, or at least knowing how to handle yourself in a fight if the time comes.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

One thing I did not see yet in this thread is the importance of combatives to assist in firearm retention.

 

[oldguy870]

"Aggression can defeat skill. "

Justin, you don't know what you don't know. I see guys like you all the time. They know they have no skill. So, they "comfort" themselves by convincing themselves they are mean or aggressive. Mean or aggressive means nothing. My cat is mean and aggressive. Deep down they have NO SKILL and it scares them.

Aggression will not help you escape a heel hook, kimura, or armbar. Skill will.

 

[JustinJ]

Justin, you don't know what you don't know. I see guys like you all the time. They know they have no skill. So, they "comfort" themselves by convincing themselves they are mean or aggressive. Mean or aggressive means nothing. My cat is mean and aggressive. Deep down they have NO SKILL and it scares them

My comment in no way implied that i think my aggression will get me out of a situation so I don't know how you came up with that. My comment was actually about people with some hand to hand training being defeated by criminal attackers who lack it. Let me repeat what i said: As far as i'm concerned real world fighting experience is far more benefitial than the level of hand to hand most people receive.

The majority who receive hand to hand training in no way qualifies as making them proficient. And even then many people who do receive extensive training in specific forms learn to expect attacks in a way they've been trained to fight and get totally lost by the attacks you refer to as sloppy. This is ecspecially true with martial arts like tae kwon doe but it certainly happens to jiu jitsu practicers in one on one fights.

Aggression will not help you escape a heel hook, kimura, or armbar. Skill will.

If i was attacked by a street criminal the last thing i would attempt is a submission hold given you are completely defenseless against a second attacker you are not aware of. Not to mention your opponent could pull a blade with little to no wayfor you to defend against. We are talking about self defense from criminals here. Not mma fights in a ring or schoolyard show downs.

 

[robMaine]

As far as i'm concerned real world fighting experience is far more benefitial than the level of hand to hand most people receive. Aggression can defeat skill

This is a very common thought and it is completely wrong. If you think, your anger at being robbed is going to help you, you are in for a rude awakening. You don't rise to the occasion, you sink to your training. I have tussled and flat out fought many "bada**" experienced "street fighters". They might be dangerous to someone without any training, but being a tough guy, with lots of fights and tons of anger gets you no where against even a moderately trained opponent.

They usually throw haymakers and make silly mistakes that lead to them getting choked out.

 

[oldguy870]

Justin,

You assume you will have the choice of whether you go to the ground.
You assume you do not have friends there too.
You assume breaking an arm takes a long time.
You assume somehow being on your feet makes you invulnerable to a second attacker.

 

[easyg]

Man has been using weapons since man has been on this planet.
This is because man was quick to learn that unarmed combat sucks!

 

[easyg]

I grew up with an old marine who was 90% disabled. But at one time, he was also world class in Jiu Jitsu. He wasn't afraid of anyone.

So what?
I'm an old soldier and I'm not disabled, but I'm not stupid either.
Going toe-to-toe and busting knuckles with a man half my age is just a good way to get permanently injured, or perhaps even killed.

 

[JustinJ]

You assume you will have the choice of whether you go to the ground.

I know i will avoid if i can and not try and take it there. I also know that most criminal attackers don't try and force a ground fight given their goal is to do the crime and get away quickly.

You assume you do not have friends there too.

I know that a smart person does not plan for a best case scenario such as that. I also realize that if my friends are there its highly unlikely some criminal is going to single me out. Sort of sounds like you are thinking mutual combat.

You assume breaking an arm takes a long time.

No, you seem to assume any fight will go your way and you will quickly overtake your opponent and immediately get into position. I know going to the ground, getting into position (if you can get into one that will break a bone or damage a joint), breaking free, and then getting up again take long enough to get attacked from someone else or stabbed.

You assume somehow being on your feet makes you invulnerable to a second attacker

Realizing that my feet give me a better defensive position against multiple attackers does not in any way, shape or form mean i think it makes me invulnerable. And i'm the one making assumptions?

 

[robinkevin]

Madcap

One thing I did not see yet in this thread is the importance of combatives to assist in firearm retention.

I actually have mention this a few times, the one I recall the most was when pointing out the usefulness of a disable person learning at least some hand to hand combat.

Justin

As far as i'm concerned real world fighting experience is far more benefitial than the level of hand to hand most people receive.

This is what the thread is about not what who is assuming what. Training that most people receive which I view as usually little to none. I think it's important to have just as much if not more hand to hand training as firearm training.

The majority who receive hand to hand training in no way qualifies as making them proficient. And even then many people who do receive extensive training in specific forms learn to expect attacks in a way they've been trained to fight and get totally lost by the attacks you refer to as sloppy. This is ecspecially true with martial arts like tae kwon doe but it certainly happens to jiu jitsu practicers in one on one fights.

This is a common thought but it really depends on the school. A good school is important just as a good instructor is important in firearm training. Also it usually it's the style at fault so much as it is the instructor. For example jujitsu is effective against almost any style attack. A punch, a grab, from any angle can be counter. Jujitsu much like judo works with the movement of the attack. Jujitsu counters by taking the movement and reversing it into a wrist lock or throw. Judo works with the movement and mainly works with throws while the attacker is off balance from the attack. Taekwondo on the other hand is full of kicks that is often seen in kickboxing. Another words by itself is useful but a lot of wasted movement and too much "flash" sometimes, mixed with good boxing and it's very effective combo.

Lastly...

submission hold given you are completely defenseless against a second attacker

This is true with some submission but other submission holds such as wrist locks keeps you on your feet, gives you control over your opponent and you can still defend another attacker off with other tools (other arm, feet ect.) remember the best way to defeat more than one attackers is to deal with one at a time. This is where footwork comes into play and keeping them line up so one is always blocking the other. This can be tricky but not impossible, however with control over the first attacker it becomes a little easier.

Of course the most important thing to take from training is your ability to adapt to the ever changing factors in a fight and react quickly.

 

[JN01]

Having some training in hand to hand is probably a good idea, but its not always that simple.

There are a lot of young guys where I work that are very serious on the subject and do a lot of the all out sparring that has been suggested. I'm sure they have great skills.

While there are exceptions (like those that have trained in MA all their lives), that level of training is a YOUNG mans game. Middle age (or older) limbs aren't as flexible, bones are more brittle, injuries are easier and heal slower. I won't have to worry about defending myself on the street if I'm laid up in bed after my back gets thrown out learning how to "take a punch".

Other considerations are time and money. Being proficient in physical skills takes a lot of practice- perhaps years. Not everyone wants to spend every waking hour training for something that MIGHT happen. Not everyone can afford to pay for the training either- assuming that there is a suitable trainer near them.

I know a few basic techniques. Am I proficient enough with them that they will be of use in a fight? I don't know. Hard core training isn't feasible for me. If I am attacked and it doesn't rise to the level where deadly force is called for and my efforts fall short, I may have to take some lumps. Sometimes life has cold hard facts you have to learn to accept.

 

[robMaine]

I know a few basic techniques. Am I proficient enough with them that they will be of use in a fight? I don't know. Hard core training isn't feasible for me. If I am attacked and it doesn't rise to the level where deadly force is called for and my efforts fall short, I may have to take some lumps. Sometimes life has cold hard facts you have to learn to accept.

This is probably the best quote in this whole thread. I feel this is the level that an everyday Joe who doesn't train for fun/competition should attain. You have some level of experience, but you are realistic about your expectations of a real incident.

You are also very correct in the time taken to be proficcent in hand-to-hand. I have been training/MMA fighting for years and just now am I starting to really trust what I know on the street and at work. What worries me is people that think their "crazy", anger, or survival instincts will save them, that just isn't true.

 

[Claude Clay]

Situational awearness trumps all.
but i still will not leave home without a gun while remaining legal

h2h is for me more along the lines of defending my gun against others in a crowd who may covet it. being able to fall, to move smoothly and stay balanced is of equal importance.

i saw some posts of a similar mindset so I'll not be repeating.

 

[AOK]

I've learned over the past year (while take KM and a few other independent classes revolving around h2h) you need to know how to fight the fight. You need to be able to handle whatever situation is thrown at you quickly and violently. Often that will require the ability to apply some form of h2h skills so you can earn the opportunity to bring your weapon into the fight.

So with this said, do I think h2h skills are more important than firearms? Yes. However, I have learned it takes A LOT more dedication (by more spending more time and days in classes) to become competent with h2h skills than it does with a firearm.

So here is another question I've thought about that may upset those who have no h2h training but have spent time training and learning how to fight with a gun. Often gun toters with little to no training are often accused (and rightfully so in my opinion) that the firearm gives them a false sense of security by those who regularly seek out training. So if we take that a step further and ask guys with h2h and firearm training, do you think those with only a firearm training background have a false sense of security as well?

 

[robMaine]

Often gun toters with little to no training are often accused (and rightfully so in my opinion) that the firearm gives them a false sense of security by those who regularly seek out training. So if we take that a step further and ask guys with h2h and firearm training, do you think those with only a firearm training background have a false sense of security as well?

I answer that with a definitive YES!! I have stated many times that carrying for SD with no H2H/retention training is asking for trouble. I would take this one step further and say you are possibly a threat to our 2A rights, or at least fuel to the antis if you have a problem. The Zimmerman case illustrates this exact issue, I feel that he was not physically outmatched and had he had any training or even been able to differentiate a lethal from non-lethal beating, this whole incident would have barely made the Police Blotter as a fist fight.

 

[sidheshooter]

So here is another question I've thought about that may upset those who have no h2h training but have spent time training and learning how to fight with a gun. Often gun toters with little to no training are often accused (and rightfully so in my opinion) that the firearm gives them a false sense of security by those who regularly seek out training. So if we take that a step further and ask guys with h2h and firearm training, do you think those with only a firearm training background have a false sense of security as well?

I will also vote "yes" on this one, depending upon the firearms trainer. I hasten to add that if your chosen firearm POI does not include-or at least make mention of the need for-a bit of retention/bridging training, then it might be time to look elsewhere for instruction. I'd like to think that serious gun instructors have at least considered the need for coursework in this area, even if they farm out for it.

In the final analysis, whomever it was who first said "there are not gun fights, knife fights and fist fights, there are just fights and tools" was on the right track.

Relatedly, another example of the thinking in your question, above, can be seen by searching back through threads on knives vs guns: responses typically divide amongst the "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" crowd and the guys on the other side who have some knife training and therefore aren't so dismissive of the blade in close quarters.

The more you learn, the more you find out that you don't know, IME.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Owen Sparks]

There is a world of difference between being a 'gun fighter' and a fighter with a gun.

A 'gun fighter' only has one weapon and is totaly dependant on it. He can use his one weapon ONLY IF he sees the fight comming in time draw and align his pistol. A fighter with a gun has many weapons and can instantly switch to whatever is appropriate.

Does anyone know how to shoot your way out of a full nelson?

 

[conw]

"Aggression can defeat skill. "

Justin, you don't know what you don't know. I see guys like you all the time. They know they have no skill. So, they "comfort" themselves by convincing themselves they are mean or aggressive. Mean or aggressive means nothing. My cat is mean and aggressive. Deep down they have NO SKILL and it scares them.

Aggression will not help you escape a heel hook, kimura, or armbar. Skill will.

False dichotomy. You need aggression or decisiveness as much as skill and in terms of criminal assault aggression does trump skill.

Raw sociopathic aggression using criminal ruse tactics does beat skill. That's why criminals use it. They don't need MMA for that. It has NOTHING to do with what you train in BJJ.

Maybe you took Justin's statements out of context or maybe not but if you think being able to apply or escape submissions in a safe sterile training environment prepares you for that level of criminal assault you are incorrect.

However again I do think as a foundational skill it is worthwhile (along with less tangible things like an understanding of position)...I just think you are extrapolating your personal submission grappling experiences a bit too far here. A guy who is willing or able to break the law doesn't need to be skilled so much as crafty or ruthless and Justin is correct about that.

Second to all that I don't think subs that require you to give up position like armbars and heel hooks are a good choice. Sure you can break the arm but it isn't a guaranteed fight stopper. Better to use a choke or use position to keep yourself safe. mma/bjj aren't designed to just apply 1:1 to criminal assault...

 

[robinkevin]

I answer that with a definitive YES!! I have stated many times that carrying for SD with no H2H/retention training is asking for trouble. I would take this one step further and say you are possibly a threat to our 2A rights, or at least fuel to the antis if you have a problem. The Zimmerman case illustrates this exact issue, I feel that he was not physically outmatched and had he had any training or even been able to differentiate a lethal from non-lethal beating, this whole incident would have barely made the Police Blotter as a fist fight.

I think Rob answer that best.

 

[jeepnik]

Seems I'm not the only oldster here trying to take the youngsters to task. And at least one youngster mentioned a 60 year old defending himself. Well I'm sure there are 60 year olds that can. But for the rest of us, I'd like to remind the kids out there of one very simple and long proven trueism.

"Experience and treachery will overcome youth and strength every time". Or has oft been said, "Never pick a fight with an old guy. He can't whip you, so he'll just kill you".