When discussing true combative skills or techniques, we are not discussing merely choking people out, submission holds or boxing people into submission. We are talking about crushing wind pipes, blinding people, snapping necks if possible, stomping skulls and the use of weapons, any of which can result in death or permanent disability. This is not something that we openly discuss for a number of reasons that I won't get into in this email, but suffice to say, these folks who think that real life and death combat is about sparring, forms or making people say "Uncle", as Master Gichin Funakoshi, founder of Shotokan Karate would say, "are fooling around in the leaves and branches of a great tree without any conception of its trunk..." I will also add that those who fall into this category have no concept of the forensic reality of the type of violence that visits people everyday on our streets, and I'm sorry but what they are talking about and what we are talking about are not the same thing Lt. Col. Al continues:

Lethal techniques are not only effective but most importantly, so simple to use that proficiency in some of these skills can be measured in training hours as opposed

Lethal techniques are not only effective but most importantly, so simple to use that proficiency in some of these skills can be measured in training hours as opposed to months or years as demonstrated in WW II. This acknowledged fact is why such techniques are specifically banned from competitive fighting and why training in such skills can also be problematic. There are those who will say "well anyone can strike to the eyes or other vital areas, etc". This is true; however the distinct difference I am discussing here is whether you can deliver the strikes to the vital areas with power before your opponent can. Also, can you make it work when you need to make it work. Moreover, are the skills being taught in concert with the true dynamics of the utter and brutal chaos of a real fight? Training in even one of 5 different types of cooperation not only ignores this fact but completely suffocates "aliveness" as it applies to self defense. In this series of articles, I will use John Perkins' system of Guided Chaos (Ki Chuan Do) as a benchmark to compare these differences and explain how you can enhance your fighting system's potential for realistic self defense purposes.

Level 1: The Set Up Grappling As a Self-defense Strategy

"Moving spontaneously is a purely subconscious kinesthetic skill. Anyone can develop it, since it relies on mastering looseness, body unity, and balance, not mechanical techniques. The only thing you need to learn is how to develop and use your spontaneous movement so it's unified and powerful for mortal combat." -- from the book Attack Proof: The Ultimate Guide to Personal Protection Grappling is a questionable self-defense strategy. In his book Jiu Jitsu Unleashed, Eddie Bravo makes profound arguments about training solely without a gi for MMA tournaments and the streets. His rationale is that it is best to learn without a gi so that you won't have to unlearn bad habits when you want to use Jiu Jitsu in the ring or on the streets, where no one wears a gi. He speaks about being opposed by many in the Jiu Jitsu community with an almost religious zeal. That being said, while I admire his evolutionary spirit, I completely disagree with Eddie in regard to his belief that the ground grappling aspect of Jiu Jitsu is a viable self defense system that can prepare you for non-competitive situations.

Jiu Jitsu will be my primary example for this section. However, this also applies to any fighting system whose practitioners have to set up in a stance as a platform to get their techniques off. My argument here is that learning to grapple as a form of non competiti