Blunt Weapon Response Workshop (diary entry)

Baton (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I was very kindly invited to teach a two hour workshop on blunt weapon response by Andy Rheeston. I have known Andy for several years now. He and Leigh Simms have hosted various cross-club study groups every month for a while, promoting the type of open mindedness CCMA champions. I have taught a self-defence seminar for Andy before and an edged weapon workshop to a group organized by Leigh too. We began the session with a discussion on the nature of blunt weapons. The greater apes have pushed their way up the food chain largely due to the way they can use tools. A blunt weapon is perhaps the earliest improvised tool our ancestors used when fighting or hunting. Desmond Morris noted in his “Manwatching” that a human’s instinctive strike is a downward clubbing action. The efficiency of this action is quite clear when we grasp an object. Our fists evolved to grip rather than to punch. Typically blunt weapons cause fractures and concussions. It is an impact-based tool. In everyday UK situations they typically offer greater range than an edged weapon. They are also more readily accessible than most other types of weapons. They are also harder to conceal than edged weapons and are not effective as close range. With the theory covered, we moved onto methods of training. I believe strongly showing principles and methodology rather techniques. Many courses will typically teach a list of techniques for students to take home. I would rather that they develop their own responses and have a strong sense of what is efficient. We warmed up going through some basic natural movements using sticks. A blunt weapon, of course, is not just a standard club. It is a chair, a bin, a bottle and so on. This was an important point. I wanted the class to adopt adaptive behaviours and not to fixate on singular items. Beginning with the interview stage and the threat, the class practised adapting their fence range to accommodate a longer ranger weapon. They train evasion tactics and accessing exits. Too many courses, simply teaching running away rather tactical evasions, and I wanted to make sure this point was addressed. I always want my clients to be running towards actual exits and to be constantly aware of hazards. We then brought in raising the alarm and vocalization tactics, using aggression to dissuade an attacker. Having covered awareness of hazards we moved onto accessing incidental weapons. This touches upon the myth of the unarmed attacker, which is a common CCMA theme. Any potential attacker can become armed in around seven seconds from the crisis point. The same principle applies to the defender. We then assessed sensible selections of weapons and whether they could be acquired in the time. Pressure was built up with the defender failing if the attacker made contact with them before they were able to use their incidental weapon. I have often found that incidental weapon training is badly taught. Students either select a totally inappropriate weapon that is little substitute for dealing with the incident empty-handed or they don’t train accessing weapons properly. What I mean by this second point is that they might train to reach an incidental weapon, but they don’t carry this on into using properly. We overlapped selecting genuine incidental weapons with a pressure test that involved using practice weapons on both sides of the assault. These tests were performed from various different compromised positions or postures. We managed our time efficiently by moving combatively from these various positions. Although regaining one’s footing is essential for these types of scenario, the student should attack and defend from the moment of contact. Next we looked at cornered situations and the unarmed response. This began with using the fence and intercepting the weapon hand from various different angles. Then we performed a movement exercise, where students aimed to avoid the angles of attack whilst getting close to the attacker. This is performed at half-speed, gradually increasing and fluidly. It trains a type of flexibility in response and instinctive counter-assaults. Each single angle was then taken into a timing drill. The attacker repeatedly performed an angle of attack with his eyes closed and the defender timed his response. Closing the eyes ensures the angle striking is performed without interruption.  We then looked intercepting the various forehand strikes with a singular principle before addressing the backhand, which concluded with takedowns and chokes using the attacker’s stick. Notes: Specific Training is at the top of CCMA’s Hierarchy of Training. When you train in this manner you develop a singular tactic or technique, first by “quarrying” – performing a type of pressure activity that forces a student to naturally discover what works for them – and then doing a type restrictive exercise that builds in pressure to full-contact. It is imperative that the objective is recalled throughout the exercise and students discipline themselves not to continue off-track. The activity should also be devised so that there are less conscious boundaries in place and the techniques are sculpted through honest training against pressure in a specific situation. I tried to keep away from giving too many technique examples. I wanted students to find their own way by following the principles being taught. Exercises should be taken away and developed through increasing levels of resistance.

Further Reading:

The Myth of the Unarmed Attacker (diary entry)The Hierarchy of Training (article)Specific Training (article)

Related articles

• Grading & workshop report (diary entry) (clubbchimera.com)

• A day of CCMA (diary entry) (clubbchimera.com)

• CCMA Self Defence Seminar in Kenilworth (clubbchimera.com)