The Bible: An Exposé

1. The Bible: An Exposé: Introduction

2. The Bible: An Exposé: A Brief History

3. The Bible: An Exposé: Scriptures Galore

4. The Bible: An Exposé: Myth or History?

The Bible: An Exposé

The Bible: An Exposé: Myth or History?

Introduction

It's a common argument by certain Christians that the bible is an accurate historical record. Some even go so far as to claim that the bible is infallible. Is there any merit to these claims? Did Jesus exist, or is he simply a mythical character? These are some of the claims I will be investigating in this fourth post of my series The Bible: An Exposé. I will continue by covering the bible in two sections; the first on the Old Testament, or as biblical scholars know it, the Hebrew bible. The second section will cover the New Testament.

The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

The Hebrew bible, or Old Testament, was originally Jewish in origin but was later co-opted by Christians. Based upon historical and archeological research the Old Testament has been found to be a series of books that are a mixture of accurate history along with religiously and politically motivated exaggerations and story telling.

As one example the well known Exodus out of Egypt has been proven to be largely unhistorical. While is it true that groups of “pastoralists and farmers” would often migrate from Cannon to Egypt due to famines and droughts in Cannon, large parts of this story are embellished or do not appear to be true. [1] After many years and numerous excavations it's been revealed that the famous “wandering in the desert” does not appear to have ever taken place.

Repeated archeological surveys […] have yielded only negative evidence: not even a single sherd [archeological term; refers to fragments of stone and glass vessels], not a single house, no trace of an ancient encampment. One may argue that a relatively small band of wandering Israelites cannot be expected to leave material remains behind. But modern archeological techniques are quite capable of tracing even the very meager remains of hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world. [2]

Another example are the stories about the patriarchs, Abraham, Sarah, and their kin, Issac, etc. do not appear to be historical figures. In fact, these stories appear to be fictional narratives designed to illustrate the “rivalries of late monarchic times.”

The biblical stories of the two brothers Jacob and Esau provide [a] case of seventh century perceptions presented in ancient costume. Genesis 25 and 27 tell us about the twins – Esau and Jacob - who are about to be born to Isaac and Rebecca. God says to the pregnant Rebecca: “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger” (25:23). As events unfold, we learn that Esau is the elder of Jacob the younger. Hence the description of the two brothers, the fathers of Edom and Israel, serves as a divine legitimization for the political relationship between the two nations in later monarchic times. Jacob-Israel is sensitive and cultured, while Esau-Edom is a more primitive hunter and man of the outdoors. But Edom did not exist as a distinct political entity until a relatively late period. [3]

Another example is the famous story of the walls being torn down at Jerico where Joshua was said to have destroyed a fortification. However, archaeological evidence shows that there was no sign of any fortifications, or any sign of destruction. The same at several other locations that were said to have been conquered by Joshua. [4]

These few examples are just the tip of the iceberg regarding the historical inaccuracies within the bible. To quote Hector Avalos:

Biblical archaeology has helped to bury the Bible, and archeologists know it. Ronald Hendel was exactly right when he said, “Archaeological research has – against the intentions of most of its practitioners – secured the non-historicity of much of the Bible before the era of kings.” We can now expand Hendel's observations and affirm that there is not much history to be found in the era of kings either. [5]

The New Testament

The New Testament is said to be about the man who inspired Christianity: Jesus Christ, and about the “new covenant” between god and man that Jesus is said to have brought. Since the New Testament is supposed to be about this man-god named Jesus (At least this is what the consensus has determined, but this is far from being a fact. As I explained in the third post in this series there were numerous contradictory beliefs about Jesus that had scriptural support.) I will discuss the field of research about this person who many argue was a historical figure as well as the claim that the bible tells us the true events of his life.

At the outset I will state that I am agnostic about Jesus' existence. I do not believe we can determine with any certainty if he actually existed or not. In Bart Ehrman's book Jesus, Interrupted he explains the historical criteria that scholars use to determine which teachings of, and stories about, Jesus are likely accurate. He argues that the earliest manuscripts are better to go by since the earliest sources will likely be more accurate than older ones. He continues to argue that having multiple independent sources which contain the same information about Jesus makes something more likely to be based on accurate information. Finally, he argues that due to the many different stories about Jesus that were created by Christian writers over the centuries to conform to the writer's own religious views the stories that “would not have been made up by the Christian storytellers” are likely the most “historically accurate.” [6] By using these methods, he argues, “we probably can know some things about the historical Jesus.”

While Ehrman is optimistic about being able to find out at least some bare basics about what Jesus taught the information is very sparse (assuming he existed). [7] Ehrman argues that, while there is not a single Greek or Roman source that speaks of Jesus, we can use some of the earliest gospels and a few pagan sources that mention Jesus. Ehrman lists the following sources (not including the gospels and Paul's letters):

1. The earliest source that mentions Jesus is a letter by Pliny the Younger from the year 112 to his emperor, Tranjan. The only reference to Jesus is a single line mentioning how people who call themselves Christians and “worship Christ as a God.”

2. Next we have a Roman (pagan) historian, Tacitus, who in the year 115 mentions how these Christians get their name from “Christus...who was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”

3. Finally, we have the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, who mentions Jesus twice in his twenty-volume history of the Jewish people Antiquities of the Jews. In the first instance he refers to a man named James as “the brother of Jesus, who is called the messiah.” (Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.1).

In the second instance he writes,

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one should call him a man, for] he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously dud not cease to do so. [For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him.] And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, was not died out. (Antiquities of the Jews, 18.3.3) [Bracketed sections likely insertions by a Christian scribe] [8]

There are a few issues with using these sources as evidence of Jesus, however. Despite what Ehrman argues, I am skeptical about how useful his criteria is given the fact that we know that within the first few centuries after Jesus' (alleged) death there were multiple gospels all claiming to be the true teachings of Jesus, even though many of them were radically opposed to one another. Some sources even claimed that Jesus never died. How can we be sure a particular gospel is even accurate? We can't. We also know that Christians were responsible for numerous forgeries, such as inserting information about their beliefs about Jesus in copies of books by the Jewish historian Josephus, which Erhman mentions, so how do we even know the non-bracketed sections about Jesus are not also forgeries? To quote David Ramsay Steele,

There are two references to Jesus in surviving copies of Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. Josephus was a Romanized (and very pro Roman) Jewish scholar. These two mentions both look like interpolations by later Christian scribes. One of them is clearly such: it could only have been written by an enthusiastic Christian, which we know that Josephus was not. This passage is missing from an early table of contents of the Antiquities, and does not begin to be cited by Christian writers until the fourth century. At any rate, Josephus's Antiquities was most likely written in the 90's C.E. So it's too late to be an independent source: if Josephus had included references to Jesus, he could have gotten these from what Christians were saying. Josephus provides no independent testimony to the existence of Jesus, much less to any particulars about Jesus. [9]

Regarding Pliny the Younger, this reference is eighty years after the alleged date of the crucifixion, therefore we cannot know with certainty if Pliny was simply repeating things he had heard from Christians. [10]

Finally we have Tacitus who, like Pliny the Younger, very well could have simply been repeating what he had heard from Christians long after the alleged date of the crucifixion. [11]

The earliest non-Christian sources we have about Jesus come nearly a century after his alleged death so it's impossible to know whether or not these very few sources are either interpolations by Christian scribes or are simply writers repeating what they have heard from Christians about their beliefs. It is for these reasons that I remain agnostic towards the existence of Jesus, let alone anything that is said about him in the surviving documents that have been uncovered. [12]

Conclusion

I've discussed a handful of issues with the historical reliability of the bible in this piece, but there are many more examples. I refer the reader to my sources for more information on this topic. Through archeology and historical methods scholars have uncovered numerous facts about the bible that cast much doubt about its historical reliability. Given the mountains of evidence I agree with Hector Avalos that “Biblical archaeology has helped to bury the Bible.”





1. The Bible Unearthed: Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, by Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman, The Free Press, 2001; 52

2. Ibid.; 62-63

3. Ibid.; 40

4. Ibid.; 81-83

5. The End of Biblical Studies, by Hector Avalos, Prometheus Books, 2007; 163

6. Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them), by Bart D. Ehrman, HarperOne, 2009; 152-155

7. Ibid.; 156-179

8. Ibid.; 148-151

9. Atheism Explained: From Folly to Philosophy, by David Ramsay Steele, Open Court, 2008; 135

10. Ibid.; 134

11. Ibid.; 134-135

12. A good, scholarly treatment on these sources and other sources for Jesus can be found in Jeffery Jay Lowder's critique of Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict. (accessed 1-5-12)

The Bible: An Exposé: Myth or History?

No Rules Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, by Gene Simco: A Book Review

Title: No Rules Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: Techniques for Mixed Martial Arts and Self-Defense

Author: Gene Simco

Publisher: Kensington Publishing Corp., 2005

Introduction

No Rules Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: Techniques for Mixed Martial Arts and Self-Defense, by New York based Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu instructor Gene Simco, is a nicely layed out book with nice looking pictures and a preview of Simco’s self-defense DVD’s, one of which I’ve also reviewed here. While well written, it makes the same mistake that I’ve seen countless times. The gross error of mistaking mixed martial arts for self defense.

As it so happens I have a history with this author. At his discussion forums at his website, jiu-jitsu.net, which are now for paid members only,* I discussed the problems with sport grappling for self defense with Simco and others. Now, this was nearly ten years ago, around 2001 I believe, so my memory has failed to recall every little detail. However, I do remember several people on the boards, as well as Gene Simco himself, throwing out insults and the like. Not very professional if you ask me. I called him on it and he apologized and told everyone to stop with the name calling, but as what usually happens when emotions get in the way, the insults picked back up again by members on the board, even by Simco himself. Since that time I do not have a very high opinion of Mr. Simco. I believe he is an excellent sport jiu-jitsu instructor but as far as his impoliteness and the fact that he spreads dangerous techniques to unsuspecting people, I cannot respect a person like this. Despite this history I will do my best to evaluate his book objectively just as I would anyone else.

The book is 185 pages and presents the information in a very easy to understand format, with very nicely done black and white photos showing each stage of a particular technique. The written instructions are also very good, though I noticed that these same instructions and pictures can be found in Simco’s other book, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: The Master Text (NYMAG, Ltd. 2005?). I found this to be odd because Simco’s other book deals with Vale-Tudo, Submission Grappling, and Sport Grappling, not self-defense, so what are these sport techniques doing in a book that’s supposed to be about self-defense???

Now, some might argue that Vale Tudo, which is Portuguese for “anything goes” or “no rules,” is synonymous with self-defense. I would disagree because even Vale Tudo in Brazil was done with limited rules and is considered a combat sport by some. [1] Even in the Vale Tudo fights, as seen on the Gracie Jiu-Jitsu In Action set, no one carried any weapons, no “dirty tactics” such as eye gouging or biting was allowed, many fights were on beaches or in boxing rings, or martial art schools where mats and softer floors were found, and it was one on one. Despite the fact that it featured limited rules, there are still rules, causing it to not be a real fight! I will make this very apparent as I review this book.

Let’s Begin...

In the introduction, which mostly talks about the book, near the end Simco writes,

I believe that the practice of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu for Mixed Martial Arts and Self-Defense are closely related by similar techniques [...]

I would agree they are similar in some ways and do have similar techniques, but as I said, true self-defense is not a sport; has no rules, and therefore must be trained for differently as I explained here [Scroll down to see the piece called “Street VS Sport: The Final Rebuttal”].

Simco says after the introduction how it’s best to stick with a handful of techniques instead of trying to learn too many:

Many students looking for an instructional guide are under the impression that the more techniques they learn, the better off they are; adhering to this philosophy will get you nowhere. It is impossible to master all of the moves of a martial art. You will find that most great champions of any martial art do not use more than a few techniques to achieve their victories. It is important to observe this and imitate it in your own practice in order to achieve success, whether it be on the street or in the ring. Adding to this problem in a Self-Defense situation are uncertain elements, making reaction time, clear judgment, and the ability to call up techniques from memory difficult; this is also true in a mixed martial arts fight where you have the addition of strikes and subtraction of rules, which is not a consideration in a sport Jiu-Jitsu match. The slipperiness of your opponent and lack of gi for leverage will also reduce the amount of techniques that you can use effectively. These additional stresses make it extremely important for you to find a smaller number of techniques that will cover a broader range of situations, allowing you to be a master of something, instead of becoming a jack of all trades.

The over all message here is good and I agree with it. I just get a sick feeling when he’s talking about self defense and MMA as if they were virtually the same, and saying how your opponent will be slippery and whatnot. This mostly has to do with MMA matches, not self-defense. Most people will likely be wearing clothing if they attack you, though they may be shirtless as well. Who knows. But my point is that, instead of dealing with the things I spoke of in my piece Street Vs. Sport: The Final Rebuttal; things that are truly an issue when you try to convert sport techniques to the street like the environment and the true non-existence of rules, he talks about the fact that your opponent will be slippery from sweat! He’s thinking in terms of a sport mentality, not a true self-defense mentality.

After that little discussion, for several pages Simco begins talking about the history of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and martial arts styles in general, Vale Tudo, and the Gracie family and their Vale Tudo fights, and includes a few Q&A’s with a few well know Jiu-Jitsu practitioners.

On page seven of this history of martial arts I find it amusing that I find the following said:

Eventually, in Japan, many different variations of the art (Jiu-Jitsu) took shape, including Karate, Aikido, and Judo. But these arts were missing essential pieces of what the complete art of Jiu-Jitsu originally held. Soon the day of the Samurai came to an end, the gun replaced the sword, and new sportive ways to practice martial arts were developed. This lack of reality created years of confusion that legendary Bruce Lee would later refer to as the “classical mess.” The “sport arts,” such as Judo and Kendo were wonderful in the way of offering their practitioners a safe way to realistically train in the techniques of their system, but often limited their practitioners with too many rules to maintain effectiveness as a combative style. The more traditional combat schools were simply practicing techniques no longer suitable for modern day combat, and with no way to safely test them, practicing these arts became like swimming without water.

It’s interesting to see Simco making the same argument I’m making, and in some ways he is correct. Many of the more traditional styles do not prepare one for self-defense, but the problem is that times have also changed and pocket knives are often carried and we now live in a world of concrete and asphalt and grappling around on that hard, abrasive surface can do more harm than good. If one is going to apply grappling in a street fight it must be modified. The truth is, BJJ faces the same problems as those other traditional martial arts and it seems Simco is blinded by his loyalty (and the $$$ from teaching this popular art) to see that.

After the history of BJJ and martial arts in general, Simco begins his discussion of “The Physical Science of Jiu-Jitsu” beginning on page 21.

Essentially, all this section covers is physics as it relates to grappling, and includes short discussions on space and distance, momentum, gravity, muscular force, and friction. Each section is well written, though extremely basic, and as far as it applies to grappling I agree with it. Of course, I find his discussion of friction to be interesting...can he not see how friction is an obstacle that must be overcome (rough pavement for example) if one is going to make their ground fighting street effective?

Next, he begins a short discussion of the various positions that are used in grappling, though first he explains the principle of “position before submission.” Essentially, all this means is that in order to be most effective at applying a submission hold on your opponent he must first be controlled. Once controlled, the BJJ practitioner is better able to mount an attack and successfully apply a submission hold.

Now we get to Simco’s discussion of several of the main positions one will find themselves while grappling and describes them, their purpose, and advantages and any disadvantages, such as the mount position and the guard position.

The rest of the chapter is Simco going over diet, cardio, weight training, and stretching. Based upon my limited knowledge most of the advice seems pretty good. At the very end of the section Simco discusses attributes such as balance and timing, and argues that your brain is the “only inexhaustible form of energy.”

I would disagree. What if Simco for some reason hadn’t eaten all day and then was attacked? Would his brain be as alert as it would be if he had eaten that day? Doubtful. What about lack of sleep? The brain is not an “inexhaustible form of energy” by far given certain circumstances.

Vale Tudo & Self-Defense Contrasted

The next section is where Simco begins his discussion of Vale Tudo, or what he mistakingly thinks is synonymous with self-defense, and where the meat of the book begins with many pages of martial arts techniques being demonstrated in many black and white photos.

Simco says at the start of the section,

The non-sportive practice of Jiu-Jitsu is usually referred to a “Vale Tudo” in Brazil. In this book, we will be looking at the non-sportive applications of Jiu-Jitsu for three outlets [...]

He then lists the three aspects of BJJ that will be covered in the book and gives a brief description of each:

1. Vale Tudo; Simco says that in its true form there are no rules, gloves, and no time limits. The absence of weapons and multiple attackers is also one difference between Vale Tudo and a street fight. He also claims to have participated and watched footage of Vale Tudo fights where biting and eye gouging occur.

2. Mixed Martial Arts; MMA is different from Vale Tudo, Simco says, because there are rules and time limits and often limit some fighters’ choice of techniques.

3. Street Fighting (Self-Defense); Here, I will quote Simco in full since I believe he misunderstands the concept of self-defense.

I use this as a general term for all fights that happen without any pre-planning, meaning one person was attacked by another. This is a very broad category where anything can happen. I have seen street fights that have a referee of sorts in the form of a bouncer or Good Samaritan. I have seen street fights with and without rules, so the concept that all street fights are life-and-death is a huge stretch. Street fighting may involve weapons or multiple attackers, and in either case, you had better be very lucky (the luck being that you are very good at fighting and your opponents are very bad), or a superhero with magical powers. I have used this book to concentrate on unarmed martial arts because that is what Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is all about. [...] For a reliable system of pistol and knife defense, check out “Self Defense Made Easy” (page 173). If you wish to advance your skill with weapons beyond that, check out the instructionals produced and/or recommended by the Special Operations Combatives Arts Association. Use of firearms is a part of modern martial arts, but it is not the focus in this Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu book.

I have suggested this book for the purpose of Mixed Martial Arts competition and Self-Defense because their practice is similar. Although street fighting has an incredible number of variables, the techniques of Brazlian Jiu-Jitsu are excellent for use in a self-defense situation, especially if you are concerned with legal ramifications.

In a street fight, anything can happen; two or more opponents, knives, guns, hostages, one opponent who knows nothing, etc. Although Vale Tudo means “anything goes,” a Vale Tudo match is usually between two trained opponents with no weapons or outside factors; that is the way I am using the term in this book. In the U.S., we might call it a No Holds Barred (NHB) match or Mixed Martial Arts. There is a great deal of uncertainty in a street encounter. In a Vale Tudo match, the level of your opponent is generally known, along with the comfort of knowing no new variables will be introduced. It is important to understand that as real as some Vale Tudo fights might seem, it is still a controlled situation. (emphasis mine in bold)

Note those sentences placed in bold font. Simco means for this book to be about self-defense but seems to be very confused as to what self-defense is.

He believes that self-defense and Vale Tudo are much the same, and yet, he admits that it is a controlled situation, there are no weapons, and no multiple attackers. Not to mention the various environments one might find oneself in, in an actual self-defense situation. These differences are what make real self-defense drastically different from even the most realistic sport fighting, like MMA.

Even more amazingly, Simco’s ignorance about defenses against weapons and multiple attackers is very apparent. He simply dismisses it and says that it’s damn near impossible to do this unless you’re a super hero with magic powers! Now, he does teach some (horribly bad) knife defense (which I’ve discussed in my review of his self-defense DVD linked to earlier) but here, he seems to dismiss the idea entirely, which no good self-defense system, or teacher, should do if what they’re teaching is true self-defense.

Simco is also misrepresenting what most self-defense systems teach. He seems to believe that most systems are “kill or be killed” self-defense systems that teach you to kill your opponent or maim them at the slightest provocation, which, as I’ve explained in another post, this is about as far from the truth as you can get. Most good reality-based systems teach you about the moral/legal use of force and how to handle a wide spectrum of situations, from the “medium-level” situations that Simco is discussing, to the life or death - the rapist has a knife to your throat - lethal situations.

Next, Simco begins his discussion of what he calls the “medium-level situation.”

What many people overlook is something I refer to as a “medium-level situation.” These are the most common of all self-defense of Vale Tudo situations. These are moments where you are not in mortal danger, but the altercation in which you are engaged is not prearranged and has no rules. This may be an altercation between a family member or friend, or perhaps a simple physical dispute between two people in a social situation. In any case, the implementation of “deadly force” and techniques that may be severely harm your opponent is completely inappropriate. This is what makes a martial art whose fundamental techniques are for the most part of a deadly nature, almost useless in today’s civilized world. The aftermath and legal consequences must be seriously examined before applying techniques of a permanently harmful nature. Jiu-Jitsu provides techniques that are practical and acceptable for use in the most common types of altercation. (emphasis in bold in original)

As I said above, Simco is distorting what any good reality-based martial art is. Most teach a range of techniques for low level threats and all the way up to lethal force, when absolutely necessary. The very fact that Jiu-Jitsu neglects this aspect is harmful for those wishing to learn self-defense because not all situations can be handled as Simco believes.

If one is trained correctly, one is able to adapt their tactics and techniques to fit the situation they are in. Even if you train in primarily a striking art, as I am, which does teach lethal techniques, that doesn’t mean that’s what I will respond with first. For example, does this mean I will respond by striking my opponent’s throat if I am harassed? Of course not! For a low level situation such as this I could use a relatively harmless technique of pushing my opponent out of range and warning him to back off and try to de-escalate the situation. The point is, Simco is doing his students a huge disservice because he is not training them in such a way that will truly prepare them for a real altercation. He is neglecting too much necessary information.

After this discussion, Simco begins the demonstration of various techniques and he begins by discussing boxing techniques. He explains how the strikes of boxing are different than those of Jiu-Jitsu. Boxing’s strikes are used to cause damage and a knockout. Jiu-Jitsu’s are used to create openings for the clinch and takedown. He then argues that “[s]ubmissions have been proven to be the most reliable way to finish a fight. The occurrences of K.O. are statistically less than the occurrences of submission in Vale Tudo [...]” Of course, he is talking about MMA, a sport, not self-defense, where striking often ends fights faster, especially if you strike first, fast, and hard (assuming you feel the situation warrants this kind of response). Even if one is smaller and the attacker is larger, eye strikes, throat strikes, and groin strikes are all options should the situation call for them. And just because you strike someone’s throat, or poke them in the eyes, that will not necessarily cause permanent damage. In most cases (assuming you’re only striking hard enough to stun the person momentarily to get away) it will only temporarily cause their eyes to shut and water and cause them breathing difficulties.

Simco also argues that when not wearing gloves to protect the hands they can be broken easily if you use striking techniques. Nonsense. Most likely your hands will need some ice afterwards and maybe some stitches but if you know how to hit correctly a broken hand is less likely to happen. Simco is simply using this as an excuse to bolster the necessity of grappling techniques.

Up next is where Simco uses pictures to demonstrate a few basic techniques of boxing and some basic defenses against those punches and kicks. Simco says, “By understanding these typical and basic boxing techniques, you will be very aware of what your opponent is preparing to assault you with, making you better able to defend against him.”

I agree with this approach. While I like to train in the “street grappling”, my experience and knowledge of the sport aspect of grappling is not wasted since it allows me to better defend against and recognize what an attacker might do should they be trained in BJJ or submission grappling.

As for Simco’s defenses against these techniques, he presents the typical parries and arm and leg blocks (against kicks) and is good, if not very basic, advice.

Next, Simco discusses the “Jiu-Jitsu Fight Formula”, which is pretty good advice if you’re a grappler. He discusses ideas on how to get into a clinch without getting hit and other strategies.

Now we finally get into the actual techniques; the meat of the book.

Simco’s stance is OK, though his lead hand is a bit extended, though that’s likely to enable his lead arm to float closer to his opponent so he can more quickly reach out and grab him since he is a grappler after all.

The next two pages lay out an example of two scenarios where BJJ might be used against multiple attackers. In both scenarios Simco uses a low kick to one of his opponents’ knees, off balancing him, and quickly dealing with the other attacker before the other opponent is able to steady himself. This sounds very nice in theory, but what if he misses the kick (as can happen pretty easily when you’re throwing a side kick at someone’s leg; the target is much narrower than their waist for example), or the person moves at him, causing Simco to miss with the kick, and at the same time hits him? It’s not very wise to try kicks when it’s best to keep both feet on the ground and move. That’s the basic strategy against multiples. MOVE AND KEEP ON MOVING while you hit them in order to make an opening to get the hell out of there. That’s multiple attackers 101, though there is a bit more to it than that but this post isn’t about discussing multiple opponent strategies so I’ll leave that for another time. But Simco, not being versed in such strategies (because BJJ is not geared for true self-defense), claims that you’re not going to be able to perform the pictured techniques unless you are “far superior” in skill to your attackers. Way to inspire confidence in potential students, there, Mr. Simco!

The next two pages have Simco discuss the issue of weapons. His obvious lack of knowledge of this topic also shines through in this section. Simco begins discussing how Jiu-Jitsu is an art in “which fatal methods of attack and defense are contrary to its principles.” I’m not sure which form of Jiu-Jitsu he is referring, whether Brazilian or Japanese, but the original Japanese Jujitsu was intended to be a deadly art, which is where Judo was developed from, in order to make it less dangerous. In Secrets of the Samurai: The Martial Arts of Feudal Japan, by Ratti and Westbrook (1996) they quote a first hand account of a match between opponents of Jujitsu:

In those days contests were extremely rough and not infrequently cost the participants their lives. [...] Competitions were of such a drastic nature that few tricks were barred and were did not hesitate to have recourse to the most dangerous methods in order to overcome an opponent. (347)

Simco argues that,

One of the main problems with the practice of defense against a deadly weapon is the lack of a realistic training methodology. For example, I know that chokes work because I use them. I know arm locks work because I use them. If I get hit or choked during routine practice, I will not die. However, how can I practice being stabbed or shot on a daily basis? You can use rubber knives, but you will likely develop bad habits and false senses of reality and security due to the lack of danger involved. The same can be said for firearms. (54)

Simco doesn’t have his head on right, here. Yes, training blades and guns can be effective in practicing knife and gun defense. It mostly has to do with the student him/herself because if the student, in their mind, believes the scenario is real and they must successfully perform it makes it much more real then just doing the defense like a robot over and over. The mind set must be there. You must treat it as if it’s real. The same with firearms.

Simco tells of his knife “defense” where he grabs the blade of the knife and twists it out of his opponent’s hands. The same suicidal defense I discussed in his DVD on self-defense. He claims that after practicing with dull knives he moved on to “sharper weapons” to prove the technique worked. I’d sure like to know what “sharper” weapons he was referring to. A butter knife?! I guarantee the knives I carry would cut him to shreds if he tried that. I already discussed the problems with this strategy in my review of his DVD so I will skip that here.

I agree with what he says about a long range hold up with a gun, where you’re too far away to reach the gun to deflect it. In this case you can try to talk with your attacker; use conversation to distract him while you inch closer, or try to back away even, and run if you have close enough cover. But Simco is right. At this range negotiation is your best bet. I’m surprised he doesn’t tell his students to kick the gun out of the opponent’s hands with some of the lamebrain techniques he advocates.

Then he argues that one must learn unarmed self-defense because you won’t always have a weapon handy and in some cases the weapon could also be used against you. He also argues that having a deadly weapon is illegal in most places. I believe he mentions these things because he teaches an unarmed (sport) system and wants to distract his potential students from asking too many questions about why he doesn’t know such and such, if he really is, as he says, a self-defense instructor.

The fact is, that if you’re properly trained, it’s unlikely a weapon will be taken from you. But in the chaos of fighting and other unknowns, it is possible you could lose your weapon and the attacker could get it, but again, if you’re properly trained and know what you’re doing the likelihood of something like that decreases dramatically. It’s also a fact that pocket knives, for example, can be carried and taken in many places, though it’s best you look into what each state law says so you know for sure. Here in Arizona, as long as the knife is not completely hidden from view (otherwise cops may cite you for carrying a “concealed weapon”) and you arouse no suspicion you should be fine. Note: I am not a lawyer and do not know the laws in every state. I am not giving you any form of legal advice, I am simply giving my opinion and what’s worked for me in the past in this state. Should anything happen I am not liable for your mistake. Use your head and check the laws in your state carefully. You’ve been warned.

He is correct, though, that you won’t always have a weapon with you, but that’s not the point. The point is that to be a complete reality based martial artist one should study knife and stick fighting and also how to defend against those weapons. It doesn’t mean you will abandon all unarmed self defense. Not at all. To be as prepared as possible it’s best to be as well rounded as possible.

After those brief sections we finally arrive at the techniques of the book. There really isn’t much to say about this part of the book. It’s the typical mixed martial art strategy and techniques. With about each and every technique Simco ignores the potential danger of multiple attackers and weapons that may be pulled, and dirty tactics. Many techniques are also done that do not take into account the terrain. In many pictures Simco is seen on his knees, which would be very bad if he were fighting on concrete, pebbles, or asphalt (of course if one were wearing jeans it wouldn’t be as bad, but here in Arizona shorts are often worn. This shows that in certain places some techniques and maneuvers would be more viable than others). The only exception to this rule is on page 105 where Simco is demonstrating passing the half guard and he shoves his chin into his opponent’s eye socket.

These, and other examples, are clear signs you’re dealing with a sport based art - not a reality based art.

In one example, shown to the right, he tells you to cover the opponent’s mouth because in an MMA match it will cause your opponent to be unable to breathe very well, causing his endurance to drop. This is clearly a sport-based technique/strategy. All the other techniques warn you to be wary that your opponent can hit you and whatnot but nothing about any of the dangers that any true reality based martial art should: weapons, terrain, multiples, dirty tactics (biting, eye gouging, groin crushes, etc.) and how to avoid them.

In another photo (among several others), as seen to the left, Simco demonstrates the back mount, and with this particular technique you insert your “hooks” and push your hips forward, causing your opponent to lie flat on his stomach further limiting his mobility. But this position puts a lot of pressure on the knees as they are driven into the ground. This is fine for the mats but horrible should you find yourself fighting on concrete. Locking up with your opponent in this manner (and other examples) also limits the speed with which you can disengage your adversary should a second opponent come into the picture. The more you get tangled up the less chance you will have of standing up fast enough to respond to a second attacker.

As I’ve stressed over and over, grappling technique and strategy must be modified in order to truly be street effective.

Another issue I saw was Simco’s often poor examples of striking while grappling. These little love taps that are designed to “wear down” your opponent is a fine strategy for the ring, but where time is precious, and it’s dangerous to be on the ground in a real fight, it’s best to make your shots count. Properly position yourself and unload on your opponent with a good strike that will actually do some damage. And, unlike what many sport grapplers tell you, it is absolutely possible to hit with sufficient leverage and power on the ground, even when on your back, if you do it properly.

Misunderstanding Practical Self-Defense

The final portion of the book I feel is mostly an advertisement of sorts for the self-defense DVD set I’ve spoken of earlier (and reviewed). He discusses his philosophy about self defense and why he believes it’s one of the best.

I highly disagree, and for the reasons I’ve discussed here and in my other review. Most of Simco’s comments I’ve already discussed in this and the other review of his DVD and so I won’t say much about this section. However, Simco does make a list about why he doesn’t include some techniques in his “self-defense” system.

Why No Groin Attacks?

- Not good for workplace defense, schoolyard and medium level domestic situations.
- Gender-specific move.
- Dependant on no protective equipment.
- Pain tolerance.

Most of these reasons are foolish. First of all, as I’ve explained already, a groin attack in some situations will be called for and not in others. A good self-defense system should incorporate techniques for all threat levels, or else the student will not be as prepared as they could be.

Most women will likely be attacked by another man...women don’t typically rape other women...

Hmmm... this one makes no sense to me. What man will wear a damn groin cup before going out and attacking someone?!

Pain tolerance is probably the most decent reason, and is valid, though that’s no reason to limit a student’s repertoire because it may be useful against other adversaries and if it doesn’t work, simply switch to something else.

Why No Attacks to the Eyes?

- May cause unwanted permanent damage.
- Not good in school yard or workplace.
- Heavily reliant on no protective equipment.
- Pain tolerance.
- May have legal ramifications if situation is not severe enough to warrant technique. Taking time to decide this slows down effective self-defense and dull awareness to the problem at hand.

Most of my responses to the groin attack applies to eye attacks. However, if someone is too large and powerful and you are smaller (especially a woman or a disabled individual) an eye attack most likely will not be viewed as excessive. But there is that chance that there will be legal percussions, though like the old saying goes, I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six, and if you believe that you did what you had to in order to protect yourself and you did only what was necessary to escape then chances are you will not have criminal charges filed. But again, consult an attorney in your state since I am no expert in law. While it’s unlikely one will be attacked by someone wearing goggles (depending on where you live), one example of “protective equipment” that might be mentioned are glasses. While glasses are a bit of a barrier to eye attacks they aren’t that difficult to get around. For example, you could punch or swipe the glasses off the face removing the barrier, or slide your fingers under the frames and into the eyes, or attack from the side or top in the same manner.

Why No Punches?

- May break hand.
- Relies on size and strength.
- Legs are much stronger and afford better reach.
- In some cases, escalates situation.

Most of my comments about this lack of punching in Simco’s “self-defense” system is covered in my review of his DVD.

As far as punching “escalating” a situation, what does he think a kick will do? A palm strike up under the chin (which will also less likely hurt your hands as well) could stun an attacker, and a less forceful strike to the throat does not need much strength to stop someone.

The other techniques he does not include in his system of “self-defense” are wrist locks and joint locks and his evaluation of them seem accurate to me.

Conclusion

As we’ve seen, Gene Simco doesn’t seem to understand self-defense very well and seems to often confuse true self defense with sportive applications of BJJ. Some of his advice was decent, good even, but most was off. A few were potentially life threatening, such as his “knife defense.” I’m still shocked about this. I bet even one of the masters of bullshit, the creator of S.C.A.R.S., would cringe at that technique!

All in all, the book was decent, but the techniques and advice was more often than not poor.



*All this took place I believe in about 2001 or 2002 and from the looks of his discussion board even if I wanted to pay the fee and look around it seems that those boards where the discussions took place are no longer there.

[1] wikipedia: Vale Tudo - accessed 1-23-12

No Rules Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, by Gene Simco: A Book Review

Self Defense Made Easy, Vol. 1: Defensive Techniques: DVD Review

Self Defense Made Easy, Vol. 1: Defensive Techniques, with Gene Simco: DVD Review

Produced by: NYMAG, 2004
Running Time: Approx. 60 min.


This two set DVD is by famed Jiu-Jitsu expert, Gene Simco, and author of a very popular book called Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: The Master Text. The first disk deals with self-defense for the average person; the second, with police officers. Due to my lack of in depth knowledge of police procedure when dealing with suspects I will refrain from discussing the second disk.

This disk deals with using BJJ (Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu) for self-defense and is fairly well put together with a very simple look to it from the menu and throughout the rest of the DVD. The sound track includes some rock and the picture quality was good, though the sound quality in some parts was not the greatest.

From the beginning of the DVD I didn’t like what I saw very much, although Simco does have some practical advice on some issues. It’s painfully apparent that most of his techniques are based on what might be called a best-case scenario, where an attacker is inept or a situation which is not very dangerous.

At the start, Simco talks very briefly about avoiding confrontations, which I feel he’s a little vague on since his expertise isn’t self defense. He talks of learning of your environment and planning ahead, parking in well lit areas and the like, and then he jumps right into the actual techniques. While vague and simplistic the advice was good nonetheless.

He explains how one is better able to be more aware of what's going on in front of you, rather than behind, because we don’t have eyes in the backs of our heads. I don’t really understand his thinking because being aware just isn’t about our eyes, but all of our senses combined. We may hear someone come up behind us, etc.

The first attack that is demonstrated is a rear bear hug with the arms trapped inside. Simco points out that many martial arts may try a backwards head butt, groin grab, or foot stomp, but claims that an attacker may be out of reach, or wearing “ steel toe boots,” and such techniques would fail. It’s funny but while watching him demonstrate how the groin grab would “fail,” his attacker moved away from his right hand, and moved closer to Simco's left hand, causing his groin area to become vulnerable to Simco's other hand, but Simco completely ignores this.





Another failure by Simco is to address the finger peel, or break, even though he places his hands on the attacker’s hands several times while demonstrating the throw and can be easily done. Even in less dangerous situations a finger peel, something I've done countless times to friends while roughhousing, can be very effective as well.

Another thing he says of those techniques is that if the opponent is very strong he can’t move his arms, yet just as he says that he once again places both his hands on his opponents’ making the finger peel or break tactic very convenient and fast. He also says of those techniques, “Although it’s effective it’s unreliable.” Huh? How can something be both effective and unreliable? That's a contradiction. Perhaps he meant that while a technique can be effective in some situations it's unreliable in the situation he's describing. Perhaps, but perhaps not. As I've already mentioned, a very effective finger peel/break was probably the fastest and most reliable tactic he could have used from that position, but he is a Jiu-Jitsu instructor and wants me make students feel what he's teaching is good self-defense.

To escape the bear hug Simco uses the step around the attacker and trip him over your leg method; a classic Jiu-Jitsu technique that I’ve seen many times.

One thing that I like is that he uses what he calls “common denominator moves,” which is the use of one or a few techniques that can be used in a wide variety of situations, and that the learning of many techniques against different attacks can get you in trouble. That’s great advice; I just don’t like many of the techniques he chooses.

After the bear hug, he shows the same sweeping technique against a half nelson and rear choke hold.

One thing that surprised me was he mentions awareness of a second opponent, but I don’t feel some of the techniques he shows prepares someone for that fact because grappling by its very nature is for one on one combat – at least the kind he is teaching here. He also neglects weapons being pulled while on the ground (although later on he shows a knife defense while top mounted but nothing about something being accessed while performing the other techniques) and foul tactics. For example, with the first throw presented, Simco fails to mention that having your back to your attacker could be dangerous should he attempt to reach around and gouge the eyes the second they hit the floor. The attacker won't always have his wind knocked out of him either, unlike what Simco says. In some cases he may not even be phased by the throw, but Simco is not planning for a worst-case scenario, but a non-threatening playground tussle.

Next you get to the section where frontal attacks are addressed and as with just about every grappler I’ve come across makes the same misunderstanding. He says that you do not want to strike your opponent because you could easily break your hand, and that the situation you will most likely face will not be life-threatening, and talks of situations that a teacher, law enforcement officer, or you and a friend might get involved in where you need to restrain someone. He then goes on to say that retraining techniques are controllable in that you can vary the severity, but that’s just untrue. With striking you could palm strike someone in the upper chest, or pop them lightly in the face to get your point across. No need to break someone nose, as Simco says, with a strike. Unlike what he says, striking can be used in a less threatening situation.

Another thing he claims is that a smaller person doesn’t want to try and hit a much bigger person, yet I know of smaller people who hit like a mule and could easily knock a bigger person out. It’s just that their understanding of striking is minimal. Also, most attacks occur within arm's length or closer, making striking a good option.

Simco talks of getting into a situation and getting into a confrontation management position and giving the opponent “a way out,” instead of getting into a fighting stance and more likely getting into a fight. That’s very good advice there and I don't have anything to add.

In Simco’s discussion of defending against strikes, I found this to be a little funny because although he teaches a good concept of blocks and parries, similar to what I’ve been trained to do in Dynamic Combat, his application of it is laughable.

When they throw punches it looks as if they’re just slapping each other, and tells you to move your hand just a few inches, and not past your centerline, to parry and deflect a straight punch, but that defense will be crushed by a stiff straight attack. He’s simply not putting enough strength into the parries, same with the outward blocks against hooks, which is even funnier. He tells you to just twist your wrist and make a small movement to the outside to parry circular punches, yet a good hook would go right around those so called blocks. He does show some good low punch deflections with the forearms and elbows, though. Simco’s kick defense is the well known lifting the leg method, and is practical.

Next, offensive striking techniques are discussed but again Simco does not educate his viewers. He teaches just one: the front push kick. He explains all of the obvious advantages of kicking, but none of the very serious liabilities, such as balance issues being the main one. Yes, as he says, the leg is longer and more powerful, but most people will not be coordinated enough to utilize such techniques. Furthermore, if someone is coming at you with a flurry of punches or a pushing attack kicking can be risky if it's not timed just right and you end up getting knocked off balance.

Next, some techniques against someone trying to attack you while you’re on the ground are shown and he shows the same technique of getting behind the attacker as before, the only difference is you’re on your knees this time. Some good techniques he shows are kicks and pushing off against someone standing over you while you’re on your back and how to stand back up and is pretty good, except for when he shows how to push someone off while they’re between your legs and you don’t have the space to get your feet on their hips. He tells you to dig your heels in the ground and slide on your back to get the space, but I guess he forgot that you might be on concrete and you’ll tear your back up, and/or, the rough surface will hinder your movement, unlike the smooth mats he’s demonstrating on that you can easily slide across.

Near the end of the DVD he shows some weapon defenses. First he shows his knife defense, which is one of the worst I’ve ever seen. He tells you to attempt to grab the attacker’s knife wrist, and then grab the blade. What?! His thinking is that if you grab the blade and wrist, you will prevent him from switching hands, or twisting out of your grip. But realistically if the guy’s strong enough, you’ve only got a one handed grip and you’ll more than likely get your fingers severed as he breaks that one handed grip. He also claims that by grabbing the blade you shrink the length of it and while struggling if you happen to get stabbed it will penetrate less. But Simco argues that after you get a hold of the wrist and blade you’re told to twist it out of the guy’s hand, much like you would in stick training and the like, but this isn’t a stick! Does Simco expect an attacker to come at you with a butter knife or something?

Let's wake up from Simco's dreamland.

A sharp blade could slice into your fingers and hand deep to the bone in some cases, even if you've got a grip on the attacker's wrist, just from the jerking and pulling that will take place as the attacker tries to regain control of his weapon. Another issue is that if you're training for a worst-case scenario, even assuming you don't get cut very deep and you're able to pry the knife loose, the attacker's other hand is still free to strike you freely while you're struggling with his knife hand.

He also shows this defense, as I mentioned earlier, while being straddled and attacked with a downward stab. With the distance cut down considerably, that wouldn’t be very likely since the reaction time would be nil.

One thing I have to say that is good is that Simco makes an excellent point that blocking a knife can be dangerous if you extend your limbs and the opponent can go around your defense, but that's the only decent advice he gives for knife defense. I truly feel sorry for anyone who listens to him, as they are not learning anything of value regarding knife defense.

Finally he demonstrates a defense against a firearm, which is actually pretty decent with a few misunderstandings on Simco’s part. For example, he tells you that you have to move to the outside or an attacker can bend his wrist and shoot after you grab and deflect, but it can also be done from the outside as well, if the attacker really tries, it’s just that his assistant is cooperating. The final part of each gun defense is Simco doing the well known grab the barrel, twist and point it at the attacker, which can work if your attacker is not a good fighter and uses his other hand to attack you, or tries to regain control of the weapon.

One small detail I noticed when Simco was demonstrating a gun defense was he had is hands near the weapon, then pretended to reach back for his wallet to give to the mock attacker, then came back and deflected the weapon with the same hand he used to reach for the wallet. That's just silly because he’s increasing the distance he has to travel, and increasing the likelihood of not deflecting the weapon in time, and the attacker will likely see that large action coming and you're liable to get shot.

One thing I didn’t like about the DVD is that throughout the instructional portion there are short clips of Simco’s BJJ sport DVDs, which was a little annoying. I think he should’ve refrained from doing that, and just put an advertisement at the beginning or the end, which there is a good a advertisement at the end of the program, so why put those clips there? Another thing that bugged me was the camera man. In some of the shots when Simco and his assistant are showing something, he zooms in very tight and you can’t see what’s happening. At one point when Simco is showing a takedown defense, all you see the assistant’s eye for several seconds.

I have to say that I wasn’t expecting a very practical method and I was right, though there were a few good points made, but I think many of these sport oriented guys should stick with what they know best and leave the self defense aspects of martial arts to the true experts.

Despite the grim review, if you’re still interested in buying these DVD’s you can order directly from Gene Simco’s website, www.jiu-jitsu.net.

Self Defense Made Easy, Vol. 1: Defensive Techniques: DVD Review

The Dynamic Combat Shield Concept

The Dynamic Combat Shield was featured in the October 2002 issue of Black Belt magazine, in an article written by Richard Ryan. The shield was developed by Ryan in the 1980‘s as a way to protect your most important abilities in a sudden, close-range self-defense situation: your ability to see, breathe, and think, which all happen to be right around the area that the shield protects most.

The shield may look like the Muhammad Ali “rope-a-dope” but there are subtle differences. These differences many people often criticize the shield for but it is only their ignorance of the application and use of the shield becoming vocalized. A group of MMA fighters I was in a discussion with several years ago argued that your’re vulnerable for body shots and leg kicks and sweeps, and are vulnerable to knives and baseball bats, arguing that a blade would pass between the arms of the shield, and a bat would shatter the arms. Another complaint was that it would not be effective when defending barehanded strikes, only if an opponent were wearing boxing gloves, otherwise the fist would pass between the forearms. One complaint was also that, John, the man in the picture to the left was supposedly off balance and had too much weight coming forward. Another criticism was it’s seemingly defensive nature. It was argued that should you successfully defend a barrage of strikes an attacker would simply overwhelm you and eventually bash through your arms.

As you can see there have been many criticisms of the shield. Some are valid observations, and others are pure nonsense. All of these criticisms, however, suffer from one thing: lack of knowledge of how to utilize the shield properly and I will address each and every one of them. One method of learning is knowing how not to do a particlar technique and by explaining it in this manner I hope to clarify some common misunderstandings. But first I want to explain the proper use and mechanics of the shield.

As stated above, the shield is utilized when faced with a fast, close-range assault. You are to counter attack A.S.A.P. and not allow the attacker time to go around the shield or find some other means of hurting you. This cannot be stressed enough. If you are unable to strike back for whatever reason, while still in the shield position, use other defensive skills, such as ducking, slipping, evasive footwork, etc., in order to get the time and distance needed to counter attack. But ideally, you’d like to try to counter immediately after the attacker’s first attack and, as I said before, not allow him to even begin to overwhelm you.

Second, you must position your body so that it can absorb force. The shield is not a block or a parry (when you first start out, though there are one-arm shielding tactics that allow you to deflect attacks at more advanced levels) and so you should focus on staying compact and close off any holes. You must lean your spine forward with a brace leg behind you to absorb the impact. The energy hits your arms, travels down your spine, down your brace leg, and into the ground when done properly. You must fight to keep your spine forward; do not allow your spine to be knocked backwards, or you will lose all power from your lower body to drive and throw a powerful counter-attack and absorb any energy from an attack. See the picture to the left.

The positioning of the arms is equally important. You DO NOT want your arms in this position. The arms create a V and the energy of the strike will travel right through the pivot point created by the angle of your forearms and upper arms. See the picture below on the left. [1]











The correct way to shield is to position your arms in such a way that eliminates that pivot point and that is to angle your upper arms so that they are pointing towards the oncoming attack. In the case of a straight on attack, you make sure that your upper arms are horizontal with respect to the ground. See the picture above and to the right. Compare the two and see the difference. It is subtle, but it makes all the difference in the world. You also want to keep your head close to your arms; do not lean your head back as that creates openings for circular attacks.

If an attack happens to come from the side you shift the arm back to cover the side of your head as seen to the left.

The shield can be used for a variety of attacks. From kicks, punches, elbow strikes, finger jabs, grappling, and even weapons, such as knives, which I will get to when discussing the criticisms of the shield.

Regarding the stopping of a takedown attempt, the shield works because in order to get a good takedown a grappler must get body to body contact with you. By using the shield like a wedge between you and him, it temporality keeps him off of you, but as I’ve said again and again, you must immediately attack the attacker because it will not keep him off forever. It will buy you enough time to stop the takedown attempt and counter-attack as seen in the picture to the right. The same body mechanics apply with a grappling attack as with a punching attack. The only difference is you are slamming into a person who is coming in on you low, so your hands will not be quite as high as with the shield as done against a punching attack to the head.

I hope I’ve explained how to properly use the shield and its mechanics. Now I will tackle the above criticisms.

First of all, it can be very difficult to judge a technique that is by its very nature fluid and (no pun intended) dynamic in its application when you’re only looking at still photographs. By the way, the same pictures I’ve reproduced here were featured in the Black Belt article I mentioned in the beginning and are the pictures that were being criticized.

Criticism # 1: The shield makes one vulnerable to body shots and lower body attacks, such as kicks and sweeps.

Reply: While shielding, one must remain alert and watch the opponent through one’s forearms, looking for the first opportunity to counter attack. Also, one should not stay in the shield position for too long, but counter attack the second you spot an opening in between your adversary’s punches. Or move at an angle in order to counter attack so as to avoid becoming a human punching bag.

Regarding the claim that one is vulnerable to lower body attacks, this is clearly false since your vision is not closed off but there is a gap between your bicep/tricep area where you can see the ground and any lower level attack that might be headed towards your body. In this case you crunch your body towards whatever direction the strike is coming and drop your elbow down to block it. If a strike comes up from underneath, as with an uppercut, you close off that gap when you see that occurring by pressing your arms together. In the picture below, John demonstrates this, as he angles his arms slightly downward to block the uppercut that is thrown in the third picture. Also, because the goal is to immediately counter attack, you do not want to give the opponent the time to figure out how to go around the shield. The best defense against this is a powerful offense once you’ve protected yourself against the initial onslaught.



In addition, there is also what is called the full body shield in which you momentarily lift one of your knees high and compress your body making it so your knee touches your elbows. This creates the full body shield and protects against a combination of kicks and punches to your lower body, midsection, and head, and you are also lifting your leg, keeping your lead leg from being swept, should an opponent try to take your leg out from under you. Another option is the typical leg block that is done in Muay Thai kickboxing where one defends a lead leg kick by lifting one’s leg and causing the attacking leg to hit your shin. The awareness you develop while in the shield should enable you to continue to see what your opponent is trying to do and respond accordingly.

There is also an emphasis in Dynamic Combat to protect those three vital things I mentioned at the beginning of this piece. They are the ability to see, breathe, and think. If an opponent effectively pokes us in the eyes we lose much of our ability to defend ourselves. If you are punched in the head repeatedly your brain’s signals to your limbs get scrambled and your brain is getting slammed back in forth inside your skull as you are getting hit, causing disorientation, black out, etc. We must remain clear-headed and be able to see, think, and breathe in order to effectively defend ourself. On the contrary, the best ways to end a fight are by those very means. But to my point. Body shots will not cause as much harm as a good punch to the head, however, a rearing back, Mike Tyson bulldozer type of body punch should be blocked (with the elbows preferably) since that can do damage.

Criticism # 2: The shield is vulnerable to knives and baseball bats.

Reply: The person who made this statement is completely ignorant. As for knife attacks, the shield should only be used as a last resort. Parrying methods, etc. are used at a distance if you have the time. But again, the shield was developed for close range assaults and someone taking a quick stab or slash at you will not be as easily blocked or parried (let alone grabbed) as many self-defense instructors advocate. Again, Dynamic Combat is a martial art that deals with the worst case scenario and with a knife that is someone in close range, rapidly thrusting in and out towards your stomach, trying to kill you. I doubt anyone would be able to successfully block or parry such attack at real speed. Even if you could, I wouldn’t want to bet my life on such techniques that have a high probability of failing when it matters most. Also, when in a violent situation your body will go into what is called fight or flight mode and most, if not all, of your finite motor skills will go out the window, making many of those blocks and parries even more unlikely. And this is where the shield comes in. You take the stab in a body part (your limbs) that will give you a better chance at surviving than being open and being stabbed in the stomach, and, just as with the shield in an unarmed attack (though this is even more vital when facing a knife) you immediately counter attack hard and fast, and with lethal force.

As for a blade passing between the arms, yes in the classical shield position that is possible, but I was taught to overlap my forearms against a knife making this unlikely. Even if you were unaware someone had a blade in their hand and you shielded the attack, your forearms would stop the person’s knife hand and the knife (depending on the length) would not even touch your body. It’s doubtful an attacker would be trying to stab you with a very long blade anyway. They are not easy to conceal in the hand and thus (assuming you’re aware as you should be in a confrontation) you should notice that the attacker is palming something in some manner, and take appropriate action before the attack even begins.

As for a baseball bat the shield isn’t even used. The typical get in or get out method is taught. Cover your head just in case as you quickly move into the attacker as the swing passes by, trap the weapon arm and hit, hit, hit. Or move out of striking range if you don’t have time to move in and repeat the first step.

It’s people like this (people who say things like this) that truly make me shake my head in disbelief. The guy hadn’t even seen a live demonstration of the shield, only still pictures, and he’s sitting there thinking of all the ways he could defeat, in essence, a statue! Anyone could do that! But, as I’ve shown, the shield is a fluid position and you immediately counter attack at the first opportunity.

Aside from all this explanation, the guy’s argument is completely ridiculous. No matter what position your arms are in, if you try to block a baseball bat of course your arms have a good chance of being broken! And with a knife, of course you are going to get cut or stabbed. But as I said, it’s a life or death struggle...would you rather not cover up against a knife assault and surely take a potentially fatal wound to the neck or abdomen? Personally, I’d rather take my changes with a stab to the outter limbs where I have a better chance of survival.

Criticism # 3: The shield will not work against a bare-fisted adversary. The opponent’s fist will go right between your forearms.

A shield, by it’s very nature, is not very effective if it has holes and so to utilize the shield most effectively, one must keep tight and compressed while in the shield. Do not over extend your arms, opening yourself up to an attack and keep your elbows pressed together, keeping the position tight and solid. Personally, I’ve practiced the shield many times using the small mixed-martial arts gloves that are only an inch thick so I know from experience the shield works. Now, no, my training partner was not completely bare-fisted, but the small amount of padding doesn’t make that much of a difference. It worked without large boxing gloves, unlike what the critics have naively said.

Criticism # 4: While performing the shield your body is leaning too far forward, potentially causing you to be pulled off balance.

How the person who made this remark could have said such a thing I am not sure. A reminder about balance I heard a long time ago was toe-knee-chin. As long as these three body parts are all in a straight line, you are in a good balanced position. If, say, your chin passes over your knee you are then out of balance. But look at John’s posture here to the left. Does he really look off balance? I even added a line I made sure was perfectly vertical. I even used a leveler to silence any critics! No, John is in perfect balance. As I said, all balance points are aligned, and his spine is forward necessarily in order to absorb the impact of an attack, as I explained earlier. This is not a “fighting position.” It is a fluid, constantly changing, defensive position for close range fighting and the goal is to stay there only as long as you have to in order to protect yourself and launch your counter-attack.

Criticism # 5: The shield is purely a defensive position and if an attacker reigns down a flurry of punches, you will be overwhelmed and be unable to counter attack.

I can understand this criticism since it seems like a valid concern, and it is. As I’ve tried to emphasize over and over, you must not just sit there and take punishment, you must attack, attack, attack! Some may not feel this can be done, but it can with proper training in using the shield. The key is to attack in between the opponent’s flurry of punches. The second or two (or even three seconds if your opponent is slow) between an attacker’s punches in plenty of time to launch a counter attack. People don’t seem to realize how long one second in a fight really is. In one second I can easily throw two punches...if I’m having a good day I’ve thrown as many as three (though most times I’d say it’s been closer to a second and a half).

As a case in point I was asked once about a fight that took place in UFC 47 between Chuck Liddell and Tito Ortiz. Tito used the shielding concept and survived most of Liddel’s punches, but he neglected the most important aspect of the shield: he did not hit back, and that caused him to lose the fight. Here is the video of the knockout.



While looking at the footage Tito had several opportunities to counter but didn’t. An excellent chance for him to counter out of the shield occurs at exactly ten seconds into the video. You see Tito still in the shield and Chuck wide open for a counter attack. Even a few seconds after that with Chuck rearing back for power shots, Tito had more than enough time to launch a counter attack, but didn’t. The shield did not fail; Tito failed to utilize it properly.



A good example of using the shield the right way is this clip from the Shield Defense System DVD that was produced several years ago. You will see an example of Richard using the diagonal shield [2] and immedicably coming back with a flurry of counter punches.



I’ve explained the basic concepts and mechanics of the shield and dispelled some myths and half truths that have come about due to the Black Belt article several years ago. Despite its very few weaknesses and those few detractors who are simply spouting off and have no intimate knowledge of how to properly use it, the shield is probably the best concept you can use to protect yourself against a sudden, close range attack.



1. Photo was taken from Reality-Based Personal Protection, by Jim Wagner, Black Belt Communications LLC, 2006; 107

2. There are different variations of the shield that are used for different reasons, but I didn’t get into that in this piece, though Richard goes into them all in the instructional DVD.

The Dynamic Combat Shield Concept

Self-Defense 101

Today I’m going to cover the basics of what you need to know in order to protect yourself legally after a confrontation has taken place. As it so happens, in order to protect yourself after the confrontation, you must take proper steps before the confrontation turns physical.

Sure, in later posts I will explain some techniques you can learn but in today’s litigation happy world you must learn how to protect yourself twice: once from your attacker and second from the attacking prosecutor should the incident lead to a court date.

As I mentioned in a previous post I highly recommend a book by Jerry Van Cook called Real World Self-defense: A Guide To Staying Alive In Dangerous Times that contains some very good advice on this subject and some subtleties that will probably shock you about our legal system and its enforcers.

So, how will you know that you’ve acted purely in self-defense and the judge will accept this defense for the crime of assault? As I stated previously, you must take steps to protect yourself before an encounter even begins. First you must avoid the confrontation if you can; walk away from the individual, drive away, or walk into a store where many people are. If you see a group of teenagers hassling people passing by your usual route, take another way home. If you cannot avoid it you must try to escape from the situation; if you are engaged by the individual, try to talk your way out of it and walk or drive away. If you are unable to escape from the situation you are in and cannot help but physically defend yourself then your only choice is to resist and use whatever self-defense techniques you feel are necessary to stop the attack upon you. However you must use only enough force to stop the attacker. Once the initial attack has been neutralized you must stop whatever offensive actions you took or else you may also end up being guilty of assault.

By taking the above steps you will be able to step into a court of law and tell the judge that there is no doubt you acted in self-defense. You did everything you could to talk your way out of a situation and avoid a confrontation. You had no choice but to punch the attacker several times to protect yourself (or someone else). Potential witnesses can also help you by corroborating your story about how you did everything possible to avoid a fight. Of course, witnesses can also give you hassles if you don’t take the proper steps while deciding when to act. More on this later.

Not only must you take your own actions into account but your potential attackers’. To aid in your legal defense of self-defense three things must be in place in relation to your potential attacker: He must have the ability to cause you harm; you must show that he had the intent of causing you harm; and the means to harm you.

There is an acronym I was taught to help me remember these steps: AIM

Ability: The opportunity to do you harm.
Intent: The intention of the attacker to harm you.
Means: The skills, or weapons, with which to do you harm.

For example, if you’re a fit 25 year old who accidently bumps into a 60 year old man and he makes some threatening remarks and gestures and you hit him and try to claim self-defense it most likely won’t hold up because your use of force was most likely too much for the circumstances. In this case the elderly man had the intent and probably the ability to harm you, but not the means due to your superior physical attributes.

However, if someone brandishes their fist and makes a threatening gesture and they are telling you that they are going to pound your face into hamburger and they are within arm’s length of you, then this situation contains all three: the individual has the ability, intent, and means to do you bodily harm and you felt it best to respond with a preemptive attack.

Of course, now we come to the reality of the witness. What they will tell the authorities varies on their particlar vantage point and distance from the encounter.

Let’s say, for example, that one witness tells police that you hit the man first because he made a physical and verbal threatening gesture but the witness who was standing behind you did not see the gesture and was too far away (or too hard of hearing) to hear the verbal threat. Now, it comes down to your word against the attacker’s. And the attacker has a witness (however wrong the witness may be, that’s what the police report will say) on his side. Not good for you.

One method of making sure any witnesses see the person attack you is to allow them to hit or grab you first and you employ your defensive abilities thwarting the attack. In this way, there should be no doubt that you were being attacked and had to defend yourself. Now the witness will (hopefully) see that you were the one in the right.

Some might discard this advice, but if you are properly trained and position yourself correctly, it can be done. Though it also depends on the situation. If the attacker is much bigger you might have an easier chance in court due to the disparity is size. On the other hand, if it is found out that you are a trained martial artist there is a common belief that martial artists are “deadly” and can take on hulking opponents and so it is possible for your training to be used against you. Being up against a much larger opponent, perhaps you decide to use an eye strike and a powerful palm strike up under the chin, knocking back the opponent’s head, jolting his vertebrae. In this case, the man comes into court with a neck brace and the prosecutor uses your martial arts training against you and asks why you used so much force. “Couldn’t you have just used a judo move to trip him, stopping his advance?” he asks you while you’re on the witness stand. “You’re a highly trained expert in [insert your particular marital art here] and you’re a third degree black belt; you’re a lethal weapon. Surely you could’ve used much less force in defending yourself.”

Thus is the reality of true self-defense.

In fact, in Arizona it is illegal to fire a preemptive attack and claim self-defense because of a verbal threat alone. The ARS (Arizona Revised Statues) state:

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person. [1] (emphasis mine)

Due to each state having different self-defense laws it’s best if you look up your state’s self-defense laws so you are prepared should anything happen, and you know what you can and cannot do, and when you can legally claim self-defense. There are many grey areas and sometimes you can get into trouble even if you fully believed you were completely justified in using force, but if you follow the above advice you should be OK and have the best chance possible of pleading self-defense should it come down to that.

I recommend talking with your lawyer about the actions you can take in self-defense. The internet can also be a good place provided you go to a reliable source. Your states’ statues will likely be online (which is how I found the statute for the AZ law above) which might make things easier. Another resource is books. One I have that is pretty good, though dated now, is called The Law and Martial Arts, by Carl Brown. It seems to contain some pretty good basic information and some interesting things to think about. Though I believe that some of his beliefs are a bit out there about how the state might treat martial artists in the future, like having to disclose your marital arts training for fear of being charged with carrying a “deadly weapon.” But overall it is a decent resource.

I hope the above advice is helpful and I’d like to end this piece by saying that I am not a lawyer; I am only repeating the little legal advice I was taught during my years of training.

Good luck and stay safe out there.


1. Arizona Revised Statues - accessed 9-5-10

Self-Defense 101