Why WIMs aren't all bad

On This Page:
Complicating factors | Legitimate Questions vs. "What if's" | Countering the Counter |

In what I teach, rule #1 is don't get hit. The formula for this is pretty simple, (Move and shield). Simple doesn't necessarily mean easy. Making sure you meet this criteria when someone is trying to eat your face ... well, it can be a little more difficult.(1) But that's the purpose of training to make sure you can meet the move and shield criteria in a pinch.

This is why a recipe for stew is often heard on the training floor. The term "Mountain Man Rabbit Stew" is both a reminder and short-hand for 'Before you move onto step two, make sure you've taken care of step one. If what you're doing isn't working, odds are the problem is you didn't do step one." (See why Mountain Man Rabbit Stew is easier to say?)

Often when a three step technique fails, it 's because someone tried to start with step two or three. In doing so they forgot to take care of step one, in this case, 'don't get hit.' It's hard to do your cool kung fu/karate/silat/MMA moves when someone is beating your face in. (Oh yeah, and that's the difference between sparring and an assault.)

The sad thing is is how often I have to go back and teach rule #1 to  supposedly advanced martial artists. People who have been training in systems for five, ten and even fifteen years  STILL insist on blocking attacks with their faces because they don't move and shield. Why? Because they were never taught to over come the 'hey diddle, diddle' reaction.

Simply stated, what they were taught is lacking key components that would make it work. The reasons why and the exact nuts and bolts of what's missing is talked about elsewhere. What this page is about is spotting the difference between a What if Monkey and someone seeing a legitimate hole in what your teaching and asking about it.

Complicating factors
Unfortunately, because of the amount of nonsense that is taught as so-called self-defense, much less as martial arts, many instructors leave themselves open to legitimate " What if it doesn't work" questions.

The truth is much of what is being taught, won't work as advertised.

This failure to perform is the result of flawed physics and a poor understanding of what it takes for a move to be effective. You can't teach what you don't know. We're not talking about the constant bickering about how to do a move "right," that is so common between systems. Nor are we talking about who has the "True Art" within systems. We're talking about what standards must a move meet in order to be effective.

What are the nuts-and-bolts components; the these-have-to-be-there-in-order-for-the-move-to-work elements? This concept supersedes the argument of what is the "right" or "wrong" way techniques are done and brings it into the far more pragmatic Does the technique work as advertised?

If it doesn't, then there is a problem.

In an attempt to obfuscate this failure to perform, outlandish stories and ridiculous explanations are often concocted. Quite often these stories are such that one cannot easily check the veracity of them. For example, flying side kicks. When asked what is the purpose of such a kick, you will commonly be told the "kicking a mounted warrior off his horse" explanation. This asinine explanation is accepted as gospel by hundreds of thousands of fledgling martial artists in belt-factories around the world.

First of as absurd as this claim is, how many people are going to volunteer to get kicked off a horse with a flying side kick to see if it works? This is of course assuming you can find a horse to get kicked off of. However, short of going to a ranch and trying to drop kick a cowboy, you can do the math. Figuring that an average horse is 15 hands (four inches to a hand) that would put the horse's withers at about five feet, from the ground. Add an additional two feet in order to kick the rider in the chest to create enough leverage to clear him from the saddle. Now since a seated rider is pretty stable due to a thing called stirrups, in order to knock him off his seat you must push his mass beyond where the stirrup is located. That means you cannot strike him from below and at an upward angle and reliably knock him from his saddle. While it is possible to lift him from the saddle at this angle using a polearm, a kicker would run into the horse's body before achieving this lift. Therefore the kicker must be high enough to not only kick the rider off, but he must be flying horizontally to avoid the horse. So figure, the kicker must -- in correct form -- leap so his feet are seven feet in the air. A leap that would put his head at well over ten feet.

Impressive since the world High Jump record is only a little over eight feet and that was set in the late 20th century by Javier Sotomayor.

But, according to what many MA instructors would have you believe, such leaps were common place on the battlefield. And in full armour (otherwise what are you doing on a battlefield?) and somehow able to avoid that sharp pointy thing that the warrior had in his hand. As such you routinely see young athletic dojo rats jumping and kicking to impress the girls ... errr... we mean practicing this ancient technique of warfare. Believing whole heartedly that it could also be used in a modern context.

However, if you begin to investigate the number of times people have actually used such a kick in a self-defense situation, you will discover the failure rate far, far outstrips the success rate. In fact, attempting to use such a move in violent confrontation usually ends up with the kicker injured because his opponent counters. In the end, we are left with the obvious conclusion that high jumping kicks are "flash" moves designed to dazzle onlookers; they are not, despite claims, legitimate self-defense or traditional moves.

Although that is an extreme example, it does serve to illustrate the point. From the WIMs' point of view they think they are trying to sort through this kind of disinformation. It is sad to say, but instructor misconduct is largely responsible for the existence of WIMs. The instructors who are most culpable are the ones who refuse to admit limitations in their knowledge. The very ones who teach incomplete and flawed physical techniques and obfuscate their failure (2). This is the bad information that the WIMs fear.

Having said this, most examples of moves failing to perform are far less dramatic or obvious than a high flying side kick. However, if you stop to think, you will find countless examples of moves not working for what they are supposedly for. Take almost any kata and see if the explanations for what a move is is credible. Does the move work as advertised? Or are there component parts missing that would make the move work?

Hint: If you have to add extra steps, twists and tweaks to make it work, then parts are missing. Everything should be in the kata already -- including the nuts and bolts that make it work. There is no hidden bunkai, there are no advanced teaching that you must receive before the move works. The move either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't then someone has mistaken basics for fundamentals.

Quite often instructors who do not understand what is missing from what they are teaching -- and who themselves have bought the silly stories -- become irritated with questioning about "what if it doesn't work." Most of the time these instructors have found elements that allow them to patch the move so it does work -- at least for them. The most common patches are muscle, speed and little tricks that they do, but don't mention in teaching. Unfortunately, without these small tweaks and cheats, the move will not work for other people.

Again, this is the breeding ground for WIMs. They have legitimate concern about a move they are being shown not working. In the case of moves not working (or taking too long), questioning a moves effectiveness is not only a legitimate action, but a necessary one.

However, any extreme is bad. The problem is when the agenda of the WIM obscures their ability to recognize legitimate information. When someone wants the information to fit what they want it to be instead of what works is when they cross the line and become chattering What-If-Monkeys.

They suspect that it is that one Thing, that if they know it, if they master it, is the key to unlocking and mastering fighting. That's the trick shot they are looking for. They want it to be about this one thing that they believe is the Rosetta Stone of fighting. And they want you to confirm that suspicion. And until you do, they will keep on asking "What if it doesn't work."

Countering the Counter We said we'd come back to this. A third option is that when you try to meet the standards of a takedown, the individual counters. Lions and tigers and bears...oh my!

Let me tell you a story. A number of years ago I met a man whose job it was to plot the death of millions of people every hour, on the hour. He was in the Navy and assigned to a missile submarine. It was his job to calculate the firing solution that would nuke Moscow and punch it into the missile computers. Because of the changing location of the submarine, every hour he had to recalculate and reprogram the computers.

What is important to realize is that, despite changing locations, the factors that went into the firing solution didn't change. The formula remained the same. What changed were the conditions of the problem; the values of the numbers that were used.

We bring this idea up to show you that when someone counters your technique, it doesn't necessarily mean that the move failed. Just as often it means that the conditions have changed. What has changed is his location. Usually in the form of repositioning his body so he can resist the force you are currently generating. Your opponent hasn't grown an extra leg, he hasn't sprouted wings -- the same factors still apply. But you are facing a new set of conditions.

Under these circumstances then the obvious answer "Do the Math" The same factors are still there, but you have to come up with a different firing solution because of the change of his location/pose/position. He moved to counter you? You're going to have to move to counter his counter.

Let's use the fundamentals of an effective takedown as an example. If you disrupt someone's balance and he manages to get his feet under him again, the way he is usually going to do it is to put his foot out in such a way that will allow him to resist the force that you were applying to him. That means stop pushing in that direction and start pushing in another direction that he cannot resist.

The reason most people choke at this point is that they went in thinking that they only have to do the math once. NO! It's like making your bed, you have to do it over and over again. You are not a missile silo buried deep in a fixed location. You are that sub, moving around and unlike Moscow, your opponent is also moving as well. Now you have a moving target that you have to nuke. Not impossible, but it requires constant recalculation of your firing solution because he is trying to keep you from getting him.

So what if he counters? If he does, you just redo the math to figure out what you have to do to finish the job. Believe it or not, this time it is going to be easier. The reason is By definition a back up plan is not as good as the first plan! (4) Odds are seriously against the "emergency structure" that your opponent is trying to establish being as strong as the original you just busted. Remember, he's trying to keep from falling. From him in that position you just do a fast calculation and meet the same goals, disrupt his structure/balance and keep him from countering. You just keep throwing these problems at him. In order to keep from falling has to maintain a 100% success rate of countering. He blows it once, and gravity takes him.

But...but...what if he counters in a strong way and can keep on attacking?

Want to know what the experienced fighter's answer is?

Whale now then thar Billy Bob, yew dun treed yerself a bad'un. An yew got a hell'auffa fight on yewr hands. An' if yew don get yer ass kicked, at tha very least, yew better expect ta be spittin' sum teeth 'Cause et's gonna git butt ugly.

The problem with fighting is occasionally you run into someone who is better at it than you are. (And if you've relied on patching, you also run the risk of running across someone who is bigger, stronger or faster than you) That isn't that the technique failed, it's because he's a better fighter. And if you step into the arena you have to accept that this is the risk you run. Did you think that fighting would ever stop being dangerous? If you're looking for something that will make that so, take up needle point.

But, you know what? Before you go worrying about what you need to fight a super ninja, why don't we focus on making sure you can win against the average asshole first? (5) He's the guy you are more likely to run into...and if you can't even handle him because you aren't meeting the standards of effective movement, how do you think you are going to win against the guy who does know what he is doing?

Now I am not saying that trained fighters don't exist out there. They do. And they are a handful if you end up having to fight them. But, before you even think of going after them you had better have your ducks in a row about making sure what you are doing works. Because you can bet your life, he does.

In addition, an experienced fighter will counter a move differently than someone who is just trying to stay upright. Spotting that difference in the nature of the counters is critical. Both however, will attempt to counter. Rely on that, expect that...because if you don't, you're going to be in a mess. Namely that you are going to be standing real close to someone who wants to hurt you and you haven't removed his ability to do that. In that case, it doesn't matter whether it is an average asshole or a super-ninja, the fight is on. And remember, 50% of the people fighting lose.

Return to top

1) Not because it is so complex of an idea, but because our default attack/defend pattern is 'hey diddle, diddle straight up the middle.' In fact, our default 'attack and defend' is like two trains on the same tracks. What most people call a fight, is more like a train wreck. While that can work with empty-handed fights, it sucks when you're facing a knife. Return to Text

2)What is even worse however is the tendency of such instructors to use one of two common dodges when what they are teaching doesn't work. First is to blame the student for "doing it wrong." Sorry folks, a one winged airplane will not fly even if the student does build it exactly to spec. A subroutine of this strategy is to tell the student he must practice it until it does work. By the time the student has practiced it a thousand times, he has so much invested in the move that he has convinced himself that the move has to work. And to some degree the move will begin to move with extensive practice. Realistically what happens in the process, the student will figure out his own "patches." These are the tricks that will allow the student to jury-rig the move so it will sometimes work for him. The other common dodge is that there are moves that only work when you are advanced enough (like the excuse we heard about a student who was severely cut by a knife attacker "You have to be a black belt to be able to defend yourself against knives") Return to Text

3) All too often in the dojo-wars and constant bickering over who "owns the true art" people are so busy fighting over which is the "right" way to do a technique (i.e. you hold your hand here and in this position or here and in this position) that they fail to meet the standard that it must work in real life. The analogy that comes to mind are two kids who are fighting so hard over a toy that they break it. We have seen on too many occasions where while two camps claim to have the right way to do a move, neither move works. Usually because both only have certain components that are correct, but have lost the components that the other camp retains. They are literally arguing over which "half" of the technique is the right way to do it. As such both versions fail to meet standards of operational effectiveness because they lack the effective components of the other. Return to Text

4)A point that those physical-phitness-phreaks in the MA/RBSD world need to understand. These guys tend to be the real WIMs, because they rely on their physical condition to carry the day for them. Therefore instead of focusing on getting the job done right, they are expecting it to turn into a wrestling match. Something that they are ready for because they are in such good shape. Among everyone, these guys techniques tend to be the worst and most sloppy because, Hey why bother learning how to do it right? It's just going to turn into a muscle match. What this attitude fails to take into consideration is that muscle is never as effective as good and appropriate technique. Return to Text