Review: ‘Ultimate Self-Defence Seminar’ by Peter Consterdine and Geoff Thompson

Consterdine, Peter and Thompson, Geoff. Ultimate Self-Defence Seminar. Protection Publications. 2005.

Review: Ultimate Self-Defence Seminar:
by Josh Nixon, ESP

This video is one of those well-known ones, considered essential by many, that you often hear about as an instructor. There’s good reason for that.

‘Action beats reaction’ – this is the key understanding that makes Geoff and Peter’s approach so much better than most when it comes to self-protection. Peter makes this point with a little demonstration of blocking’s uselessness in a reactive manner after a simple warmup of exercises chiefly concerned with coordination. He goes on to give what I consider the best explanation of the double-hip method of striking I’ve ever seen. There’s similarities between this and Systema’s waveform striking, which is definitely worth looking into as well if you like this method of power generation. I definitely do. It works very nicely for me, especially for body shots.

Following from this, Peter goes on to discuss and demonstrate sections on: speed and the flinch response, pre-emptive striking, UK self-defence law, adrenaline and the physiological biochemical responses of stress, pre-planning for violence, the effects of mind-altering chemicals, effective punchbag training, dialogue training, palm striking, the issues around striking with the knuckles to the face, lining up an aggressor, the biomechanics of efficient striking, zanshin, footwork, distance’s effect on striking opportunities, and the effects of surprise and shock on striking efficacy.

‘There’s no growth in comfort.’ I’ve got that up in the garage with my punchbag. For the second half, Geoff Thompson takes over and begins with hook punching on the pads, then a drill of striking with restricted movement. Afterwards, Geoff goes on to discuss and demonstrate sections on: fear and discomfort, double-hip striking towards the face, verbal distraction and deception with pre-emptive striking, usage of ‘the fence’ and shows of aggression, dynamic biomechanics in kicking (with Peter Consterdine), bodyweight grappling drills, foot tripping and trapping drills, striking from positions of biomechanical disadvantage, throwing and groundfighting, the importance of reading and learning, and attitudinal changes that are beneficial to training and to combat.

This really is a gem of a video. I personally find it quite motivational to listen to aside from the training ideas it offers. I highly recommend this one in particular as a worthy addition to any instructor’s shelf. Moreover, I would recommend this to students and prospective students too – if your instructor or prospective instructor doesn’t discuss any the kinds of things shown in this video (or especially if they’re ignorant of the concepts) then chances are they’re not worth your time. That’s a strong thing to say, I realise, but I feel that the quality of the basic information and sentiment behind this video’s content is substantial enough to warrant such a statement. The bottom line: watch this.

This video is available on DVD or for digital download (much cheaper, understandably) from http://www.peterconsterdine.com/store.htm. Further information and a download link can also be found at http://peterconsterdine.com/ultimatesd.htm.

Review: ‘Peter Consterdine’s Training Day Seminar’ by Peter Consterdine

Consterdine, Peter. Peter Consterdine’s Training Day Seminar. Protection Publications. 2007.

Review: Peter Consterdine’s Training Day Seminar:
by Josh Nixon, ESP

No messing around, this video starts as it means to go on with some impact development on the pads. As is usual with a British Combat Association production, a very important point is raised early on; that we shouldn’t be hesitant (and thus inefficient) when attacking. Instead, we should make sure that everything we do ‘explodes’; that it’s fast, committed and decisive.

The video goes on to cover stance length and the issues around it, relaxation for impact development in kicking, footwork and biomechanics in kicking, concomitancy when kicking alongside upper-body striking, exposure time and timing in striking, kicking at close ranges, Wing Chun (詠春 ~ yǒng chūn) tactile sensitivity drills (Sticking Hands ~ 黐手 ~ chī shǒu), parrying and blocking drills, recovery and commitment in kicking, intensity, adrenaline, stress, context and setting.

The DVD is unique in that this is the first full seminar Peter has given which covers his own high level martial arts training. Renowned for the “double hip” generating power of his strikes and kicks, this seminar, covered how power is generated and explosive speed with maximum dynamic movement and aggression. All this is shown as well as the key elements in the ultra-fast transitions from punching to kicking and vice versa.

(Information from http://peterconsterdine.com/pctraining.htm on 28.02.2013)

This video, in summary, demonstrates a group of men and women taking part in some excellent martial arts training. What sets it aside from other such videos is that it’s done with intensity. My advice to anyone who feels their training is missing something in terms of intensity is to watch this and take on the general feeling of motivation. Essentially, as Peter says at the end, this training session only has a few basic things in it: jabs, crosses, hooks, uppercuts and roundhouse kicks more or less. However, the crucial understanding is how they train these basic things at the British Combat Association.

Assistant Instructors who took part in this seminar include Steve Williams, Iain Abernethy, John Skillen and Peter Lakin.

This video is available on DVD or for digital download (much cheaper, understandably) from http://www.peterconsterdine.com/store.htm. Further information and a download link can also be found at http://peterconsterdine.com/pctraining.htm.

Martial Art? Combat Sport? Self-Defence? Self-Protection? What’s the difference? Why does it matter?

By Josh Nixon, ESP

Please note: This article is now outdated. It is merely retained here for archive purposes, so the changing nature of things here can be seen by all. Consider the following just my older thoughts on the matter, from which the current ones have come.

Here is the updated version of things: http://evolutionaryselfprotection.wikia.com/wiki/Self-Protection

In discussions of different training systems, it becomes immediately apparent after a quick Google or a sift through YouTube that the terms used in the title of this article are used more or less interchangeably by a great many people. This may seem unimportant, but it is becoming a big issue in the martial arts community today. In an attempt to help with this problem, and also to clarify my use of these terms online and offline, I thought it would be useful to produce a short list of these terms, and how I would define them, with some examples of common traits. Note that the following is merely my personal use of these terms, and other peoples’ usage of them will vary, as they are of course completely free to do so.

Martial Art: A martial art is exactly what the name suggests – an art. An art is a method of expression through application of creativity, and is typically concerned with aesthetics. As such, martial arts are often concerned with aesthetics, historical traditions, cultural customs and philosophy. These systems will often focus most of their training on one aspect of fighting, though not always. Martial arts can be traditional or modern, and different systems are often mixed into hybrid systems, usually in order to address what the instructors feel is a shortcoming of their original system. These are often termed Mixed Martial Arts (MMA), though this term is now used more for combat sports systems so many adopt the alternative term Hybrid Martial Arts (HMA) to avoid confusion. Martial arts can be thought of as a method of self-perfection rather than necessarily self-protection, though of course all martial arts training will have some real combative merit, and will often be extremely potent systems with which to protect oneself, so they should be respected as such.

Combat Sport: A combat sport is, again, exactly what the name suggests. If a system focuses on competition then it is a combat sport. These systems are often characterised by points-based sparring, where points may be awarded according to damage dealt, submission, knockout, etc or on aesthetic grounds, for example. Tournaments are often held on a regular basis, and the more well-known ones are the ones you see on TV and online. If training is focussed solely on fitness with any combative merits being considered secondary then that system could also be considered a combat sport.

Self-Defence: Self-Defence is where this topic gets confused on a regular basis, and arguably where it matters a little more pressingly. Self-Defence is a term used for reactive systems that are geared towards dealing with a combative situation by reacting to a physical attack. This includes Reality-Based Self-Defence (RBSD) systems. These systems are not concerned with aesthetics, historical traditions, cultural customs or philosophy.

Self-Protection: Self-Protection is a term used for systems that, in addition to the reactive methods of Self-Defence, incorporate proactive methods such as pre-emptive striking, and a great emphasis on awareness, evaluation, avoidance, evasion and communicative, noncombative strategies such as verbal de-escalation. An understanding of psychology thus often features prominently. As a result, self-protection systems are concerned heavily with how to stop a situation from becoming physically combative in the first place so that in a sense the physical combatives are secondary in focus. However, these physical combatives will often take up a large portion of the training time in sessions. These systems are also not concerned with aesthetics, historical traditions, cultural customs or philosophy.

So why does it matter? It matters because any confusion between these terms can lead to extreme differences of expectation and reality in training. For example, a traditional martial arts class marketing themselves as a combat sport might not be delivering what the students who have seen their posters are looking for, if they rarely hold tournaments or are not very competitive in their training. Similarly, a combat sport class focussed on UFC-style cagefighting could accidentally mislead prospective students by marketing themselves as a martial arts class, as people seeking a martial arts class may be looking for the tradition, philosophy and artistic values that a sports-based class would simply not be concerned with. This becomes more concerning when martial arts are marketed as self-defence or self-protection, however, as confidence in a martial arts technique trained from a perspective which is concerned with aesthetics can often be extremely dangerous in a real combative situation, or even fatal.

This article is not a criticism of any system, style, art or form, but rather a comment on the terminology used to denote them, and an appreciation of the effects that the confusion of these terms can have. Remember though: don’t judge a class necessarily by what it categorises itself as, because at the moment there is almost an interchangeability in many of these terms. Now that these terms have been clarified however, at least if nothing more our ESP-related discourse will be clear and unambiguous.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,077 other followers

%d bloggers like this: