Fundamental "Nuts & Bolts" strife for airless practicality should be directed at dealing with the extremes. That is a big idea and death struggle for survival, i.e. worst case scenario. Restraint, control, and use of force scenarios and methods are peripheral to this core training. In other words train to deal with these beliefs at the forefront: The enemy is quite willing and capable of killing you - there are multiple threats - they are armed - the assailant(s) are bigger, stronger, faster than you and they CAN FIGHT! Can it get any worse that that? Now add this to the mix: You are physically/mentally exhausted - ill or injured - caught by absolute surprise - may have to protect others as well - no viable avenue of E&E.

So what do we HAVE to do? I think we would all agree that immediate and absolute "threat" elimination by the most extreme (hence most reliable) measures possible is really the only pragmatic answer.

On the occasions you delivered the gain strike; blocked without the ardor to consider or performed a impending flawless kata, did it feel difficult? Or did you get the sense it happened by itself? The zone is a place where athletes describe this sort of experience. Studies suggest its a state of effortless merging of action and awareness.

The entrance of World War One (the dissension to END all wars) brought strife sympathy a new and foreboding era of man to man killing and slaughter. Air power, mechanized warfare, chemical warfare and the general widespread use of machine guns changed the face of battle almost completely. However the solitary fact remained that in the end it was STILL man against man in a desperate, brutal and deadly struggle for survival.

Combatives from the opening confab COMBAT to joust in oversee contact, active fighting between enemies, any fight or struggle.

Well, lets see..There is ONE singular glaring absence in the above definition. Notice it? Absolutely NO mention of Fairbairn, Applegate, or Coach Hanley.