S.P.E.A.R. SYSTEMä
Combative Philosophy
Applications &
Implications for Personal Defense
By:
Tony Blauer
In your fight,
you're point.
Irrespective
of your training, position on a team, if the opponent is in your face, it's now
your fight. And while there may be
professional rules of engagement, its also now a very personal moment. If you can't subdue this threat, you likely
will not accomplish your task within the professional mission and likely the
confrontation will also have impact on your personal situation.
The answer:
Totality in training.
While
'totality' may appear to be grandiose, the reference is merely philosophically
based argument that suggests that 'we' must look carefully at the combative
arena, the environment and specifically the opponent through a disciplined
threat assessment filter. This will
enable us to customize training to provide the greatest tactical advantage for
the next engagement.
"The superior fighter has no emotional attachment
to any particular
range of combat."
-BTS
maxim
Our
methodology seeks to improve spontaneous effective modification or adaptability
of the warrior's arsenal. This includes
personal tools (body/mind) as well as tactical tools (all other weapons). My
message has always been to be diverse, skilled in all ranges. If push comes to
shove you must have no physical preference, no emotional attachment to a range,
only then you can make a calm, calculated, strategic choice and force the
confrontation to the range that suits the situation.
"Are you
training for your next fight
or are you
training for your last fight?
–BTS
Maxim
The
majority of training is out-of-date, sport-driven or knee-jerk based. Rarely do we think way outside the box about
our vulnerabilities, or creatively think about how our opponent will 'ambush'
us. This is the secret to the SPEAR
System method; its focus on 'startle/flinch' conversion during the Murphy
moment. Our system does not replace
other tactics; it's merely a bridge to those tactics you already possess. Our
training paradigm provides a formula to address a problem in training rather
than in the arena. Remember: "Experience
is something you get, shortly after you need it!" we prefer to get our experience before someone else gives it to us J
Our
training directive is to provide greater tactical confidence by focusing on
weakness (ours & there's) rather than solely working on strength.
The mechanics
toolbox metaphor
The
usefulness of the toolbox is that it carries a variety of tools to address a
'mechanic's' dilemma: diagnose, treat & remedy a problem. Fighters are like
mechanics. When they are confronted with a problem, they must fix it. (This
applies to the street, competitive and combative arenas.)
Like the mechanic, we
must be able to diagnose and treat the problem before it becomes too serious.
The key to appreciating this philosophy is in understanding that there are two
phases of "physical' training necessary for street confidence.
1.
ATTACK SPECIFIC TRAINING(Type
of attack: choke, hair grab, sucker punch, gun grab, etc.)
2.
SCENARIO SPECIFIC TRAINING(The actual
situation: location, time, friends or enemies present, weapons, escape routes,
who's the opponent, etc.)
It
is dangerous to look at a fight as purely a physical dilemma. We need to ask:
"What is the specific situation?" Do I need to be on my feet? Does my
opponent have a group of friends with him. And so on.
In the above
examples, there was no mention of the 'attack' or the tactics. But each
question created an image, scenario and perhaps ideal strategy. Before you head
butt someone or break an elbow with an arm bar - read the situation.
Remember, don't
necessarily use your favorite move in a fight: use the move that's worst for your opponent! That takes
versatility. There are times for the ground and times to stay on your feet.
Most of the time, for the extreme close quarters you want to be up and ready to
move. But for real-life confidence you need to cross train.
Should you train
grappling? Yes, but with a focus on how to 'subdue' not 'submit' your opponent. Strike when you can, grapple when you
have to. My friend Ron Donvito sums it up best: "Grappling
may be your thing, but blunt trauma is king!" This philosophy helps create clarity in the moment.
Remember, street confrontations generally start in close quarter range. If the
confrontation is not taken care of verbally or physically at that range, or if
the attack were so sudden, it would probably go to the ground. Learning
grappling skills is extremely important for total confidence. And if you are
forced to the ground you will not panic. You have the tools.
COHESION AND 'RELATIVE' TOTAL CONFIDENCE.
There are three
general groups that create confidence.
They are:
- Physical Conditioning
- Physical Skills Development
- Strategic & Tactical
Conditioning
The simple message
here is that your body must be able to support the activity. Your body/mind system must be able to
perform movements to skillfully address the problems and your scenario training
must be able to strategically and tactically solve the problem. If you leave out parts of this trinity, you
weaken the synergy!
Being prepared in all
ranges and situations cannot be addressed by a philosophy or a 'style'. Only a
'system' can attempt that, because systems evolve to address change.
A 'philosophy' is
only validated if the tangible aspects of the philosophy are explored. That's'
the scientific (physical) connection. And, a philosophy is useless if YOU
control the experiments and the condition so that it supports the philosophy.
Preparation and
'theoretical' totality requires complete integrity (you have to be willing to
throw ideas away, even if you've invested time and money - referred to as 'the
paradigm shift'). Here's an example of theoretical preparedness: Would you agree
that most martial artist's arsenal is usually categorized by four ranges:
kicking, boxing, trapping, and grappling? And that each range possesses a
specific tool set. I.e. Kicking range=kicks, Boxing Range=strikes, etc.
In my 'system', we
have 8 definite ranges, making our system "theoretically" more
complete. Also, in BTS, we are concerned with close quarter effectiveness, our
ranges involve reality-based tools and our definitions are more
"global" allowing for and inspiring greater versatility.
The Ranges of BTS
#1.
Cerebral {FEAR management, VERBAL defuses, etc.}
#2. Weapons
{Protective strategies against knife, gun, club}
#3. Rage Attacks
{sudden explosive attacks during the verbal stage: tackles, haymaker shoves,
grabs, etc}
#4. Leg Maneuvers
{kicks, sweeps, shins, knees, etc.}
#5. Fist techniques
{punches, knuckle strikes, hammer fists, etc}
#6. Close Quarter
Skills {elbows, head butts, claws, nerves, bites, knees, controls, etc}
#7. Groundfighting
{ballistic grappling tools, close quarter skills that apply to the ground.}
#8. Grounded (when
your opponent is standing and you are down). {Tactical Get-up, spinning,
attacks to legs, take downs, etc.}
Preparation, for me,
is about survival, and to evaluate the conditions I may face, I must look at
real life attacks in cars, elevators, stairwells, water, a bed, and so on. Then
I must think about the opponent, the personality the attacker, the conditions,
the repercussions, etc. And then I must analyze the scenario. If you can tell
me when you next fight will take place, against, whom, how many opponents, if
there'll be weapons (you get the point) then I would agree, you could
completely plan for it. And if you can't, then you either get paranoid or
practical.
With this POV it may
appear that my system would include hundreds of techniques and counters, etc.
Not the case. In fact, we don't teach 'defense' in the conventional sense and
there are virtually no techniques to learn. We embrace the three 'T's":
Tools, Targets and Tactics. Know your personal tools; know your opponent's
targets. In a real fight (one that cannot be avoided, when you
introduce a tool to a target and that is a
tactic. Let the scenario influence the level of force, let your opponent
'tell' you through his actions how & where he needs to be stuck.
How can something as
simple as 'The Three T's' work? Because scientifically speaking, at close
quarters, most people attack in similar ways, we refer to this as the Primary
Initiation Attack (PIA), this training model allows one to improve perception
speed, decrease reaction time and in theory, if you can intercept & destroy
the PIA, the fight is almost over. So
which style has the best techniques? In truth, a technique never won a fight;
it was always the warrior who did the work.
The 'style' in my opinion, is incidental to the victory. When you
really analyze the micro-moment of combat and contact, where the result was
favorable, it was usually a combination of spontaneity, commitment and
directness that won the moment, irrespective of the style, system or tactics.
Recognize that 'being
attacked' is more dangerous than 'attacking'. Develop 'adversity-based
training' where you create worst-case scenarios and work to safety from there.
This philosophy will engenders new drill all the time
so yore not training for your last fight. And remember: Don’t
mistake the trademark for the truth; all training is 'fake', even when it's
dangerous (because its still a drill).
Our job, therefore, is
'to create
the most realistic 'fake' training possible. Embracing this, we keep
ourselves humble, because we don't mistake the drill for the fight.
Practical for me was
creating a system that embraced one concept:
the result. (
I recently received an email from an
associate in Germany who asked me what I considered to be the most important
aspect in a fight? My answer: the result.) And how do you train for
results? Simply by 'what-if-ing' attacks and scenarios and then doing your
homework.
My system is a 'way'
and I enjoy the 'laboratory' environment. We are always doing experiments,
looking for feedback. I love the research and the training. I love the journey
and exploration. I would get pretty bored if all I did were practice the two
moves I used to win my last 4 fights. And who were my opponents? Was I ambusher
or ambushee? So who cares, because ‘they’ do not represent every opponent. Learn. Move on. As a result of my
philosophy, the 'map' of the system gets larger & larger. Because
'knowing what you don't know is more
important than not knowing that you don't know'.
Tony Blauer
