ECQC AAR - Wallingford, CT May 13-15, 2012

[Mitchell, Esq.]

ECQC
Wallingford, CT May 13-15, 2012

Overall philosophy of ECQC:

The overall philosophy I got from ECQC is to test.

This class will test your understanding of people by observing how they act regarding pre-fight tells, and how to interact with them so that you can interrupt their thinking and make them react to you instead of you to them.

It also tested equipment and abilities, everything from the student’s holster & belt set up, marksmanship ability, the student’s ability to draw a weapon, physical aptitude, grappling skill, mental toughness, verbal agility, endurance and if you can take a fall and keep on fighting.

Craig uses the word “Audit” when talking about his class, and it may seem strange to consider a training class in that way, but it fits very well.

You aren’t only taking the class to learn new skills, you are supposed to find out if the ones you think you have mastered actually work against a malevolent opposing will, and if they fit into the paradigm of a close quarters criminal assault.

ECQC is a great way to find out your weaknesses and strengths are. Some people don’t want to know this, and practice training that validates them, and skills which they are good at. In ECQC you can’t chose to avoid the things you aren’t good at because the class format doesn’t let you.

I learned my shooting was adequate to the task for the most part, but that in the ECQC realm, other skills are significantly more important, like standing grappling, grounded grappling, footwork, strength, endurance, pain tolerance, awareness for early pickup of assault precursors & verbal skills to pre-empt the physical aspects of the encounter.

I got a rude awakening when it comes to grappling, and I’m glad to have found it out now when the remedy is week of sleep, some pain killers and finding a BJJ school instead of dental work, surgery, steel pins and physical therapy.

Physicality

This class took place on a shooting range, but make no mistake about it, this class was very demanding class when it came to physical skills. I don’t think anyone walked away happy with their own fitness, seeing no need to improve.

The pressure level in the class was something I looked forward to because it pretty conclusively invalidated some things I’ve been training in before. I love the Aki-Jujitsu I did in the past…but it’s really a parlor trick.

A good frame of reference for some of the disarms so I can conceptualize what I’m supposed to be trying to do to the limb, but beyond that, “meh”.

Mental
The class consisted of people with many varying physical makeup’s and fitness levels. It ranged from a NYPD officer who is, to put it mildly, “impressive in size & skill” to an older man who had no background in martial arts.

However, everyone braced up and dove right in with max effort and never let up in class. Nobody gave up because they were tired, sore or just didn’t feel like pushing the envelope. It drove home the point that it is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.

Equipment

What was used: Glock 19, inside the pocket mag holders made from old pocket holsters/ Blade-Tech IWB holster & Comp-Tac C-Tac.

What worked:

The Glock 19, obviously…pocket mag holders didn’t make my reloads any slower than most peoples, and they hide the extra mags well in office clothing, so I didn’t bother with belt mag holders.

The C-Tac was a lot less fragile than I thought it was (Good on you, comp-tac!), and stayed on the belt during the grappling with the C-Clips. I’d like to see the C-Clips having a bit more overbite to the belt to hold better, but as they stand now, they are usable.

What didn’t:

Some failures to fire with WWB ammo. Shocking…whatever.

Understanding the threat environment:

A core focus of ECQC is for someone to understand the threat environment, and to work within that environment to apply the skills they have to that environment, adapting those skills and learning new ones. Everyone in the class knew “how to shoot” but it was a different experience shooting from your back, at a moving, aggressive opponent who wanted to keep you from getting a shot off in the worst way.

Southnarc talks a lot about dealing with a “malevolent opposing will”…which sounds a lot like what happens when a guy on the street wants what you have, and had decided to get it from you no matter what.

All training in this class was in context for use by the students without the usual adaption of “Skill taught in a sterile environment -> Skill applied with a task overload”. In this class, task overload was factored into the learning.

When I speak of task overload, I am referring to the mental effort of managing a situation, interacting with other people, movement, keeping track of the environment, AND the developing tactical problem which may not yet allow you to shoot.

But then again, that’s what it’s like when you do encounter someone who may be hostile. He’s going to distract you, he’s going to approach you, and you are going to have to deal with the situation as it is, not how you want it to be.

Law:

This was not a self defense & the law class, so law really wasn’t a big part of the instruction, none-the-less, I’m a lawyer, so what would you expect? (YOU! I see the dead rat you are going to hurl. Can you please throw a bigger one? I’m hungry, and don’t really want to hunt. Thanks!)

This class is going to have a big impact on how I would handle a use of force case. It really drives home the visceral fear of being grounded, encountering multiples, and how fast things can go bad.

I “knew” (in as much as I can…) before, from how little I like being on the ground in a BJJ class, and how hard and hairy shooting from your back can be in a pistol class, but doing it while someone is actively trying to take your gun, knowing that if this goes bad, you are going to get shot…Whole new level of “Suck”, and that’s something I want to be able to convey to a prosecutor or a judge from first-hand experience should I need to in a defensive use of force case.

Being grounded IS that bad. Multiple opponents, even unarmed, ARE that dangerous. Talking about it from an intellectual standpoint is one thing, talking about it from the point of view of someone who’s had someone on top of him, holding him down, having his gun taken and hearing the “POP”…quite another.

It’s also given me more information on how people are justifiably shot in the back in violent encounters, the speed of movement and preemptive striking.

The standard for the use of force is the “Subjective / Objective Test” and within that standard, the “Ability – Opportunity – Intent” factors must also be considered.

We must make a reasonable decision regarding the use force, in a patently unreasonable situation, during interaction with unreasonable people...and we must act within to bounds of the law, while your opponent has no such restrictions. Further, it must be done at high speed, under great physical and mental stress, and done with regard for the safety of those around you who are not involved in your fight.

It’s a tall order. In one evolution, Southnarc took a round high-center chest. It would have been great marksmanship if he was an attacker…but considering he wasn’t involved in the scenario except as a bystander, the paperwork on that shot would be…um…Substantial.

It’s difficult, and needs to be learned not only from the lecture side, so one has the information to apply to the experience, but also from the experience/scenario side, so that one has the experience to apply the information learned in a classroom setting in real time.

Lecture and discussion alone are not, in my opinion, sufficient for someone to be able to say “Based on my training and experience, I judged the other person’s actions to be an imminent, unavoidable threat of death or grave harm to myself”.

The classroom lessons must be applied in situational training as realistically as can be done safely for the information to be adequately mastered for it to be useful.

Classroom based learning regarding self defense & the law is important, because how else would someone understand the standards by which they would be judged after the event, and the process by which that judgment would occur – but it should not be considered a stand-alone method learning.

Overall:

I’m taking this class again. No question...and I'm looking into finding a nightmare of a building for AMIS for 2013.

Maybe a multi-story night club during day hours...

[BaiHu]

Great write up, Mitchell. I especially like the 'Law' section, b/c it really highlights the IFWA (in-fight weapons access) issues that I was having in class. The criminal has all the advantages, whereas the civilian has all of the disadvantages and responsibility to make sure they are safe, everyone around them is safe and deal with a hostile attacker. It is a tall order for anyone on any day and Craig does a great job of giving you a good reality check and plenty of flight time so that you can begin to understand the things you will need to consider and attempt to 'master' the techniques taught in ECQC in case you find yourself in a god forsaken eff'd up situation such as the scenarios he presented to us.

[zacbol]

Great AAR. I'm still hoping to get into an ECQC course being offered here in Wa state in October.

One question, you mention the amount of grappling and wanting to take up BJJ afterward. The thing I like about what you've described is that it sounds pretty intense. That said, did Craig speak to the fact you weren't/aren't actually striking people in the same way you would be in real life? It seems like this would unnaturally slant things towards grappling because if you aren't actually hitting someone in the face, joints, etc invariably a fight will go that way. That's always been the catch-22 with any combative or martial art in my experience. If you do what's most effective, you can't really practice it full force. Conversely, if you unnaturally restrict what you're going to do, you aren't using the most effective tools for the job but you are able to more effectively practice. I tend to favor the latter myself.

In general, I like the balance Krav Maga strikes there. It's not perfect or even, perhaps the best, but if feels workable. I just wrote up an AAR on a Close Quarters class I took with John Holschen while I derived a lot of value from it, if I were to critique one thing, it was that with untrained people with whom you're not working regularly (as I do in Krav) it's hard (and potentially dangerous) to go as intense as you might otherwise. Just to give an idea of what's happened to me at Krav, here's my arm a week after one class (I have way too many photos like this). I'm hoping injuries were not too much worse than this:
https://plus.google.com/photos/101859722493968312512/albums/5745464535617497425?authkey=CM2Z2JW7x-mUTQ

[TGS]

Great AAR. I'm still hoping to get into an ECQC course being offered here in Wa state in October.

One question, you mention the amount of grappling and wanting to take up BJJ afterward. The thing I like about what you've described is that it sounds pretty intense. That said, did Craig speak to the fact you weren't/aren't actually striking people in the same way you would be in real life? It seems like this would unnaturally slant things towards grappling because if you aren't actually hitting someone in the face, joints, etc invariably a fight will go that way. That's always been the catch-22 with any combative or martial art in my experience. If you do what's most effective, you can't really practice it full force. Conversely, if you unnaturally restrict what you're going to do, you aren't using the most effective tools for the job but you are able to more effectively practice. I tend to favor the latter myself.

In general, I like the balance Krav Maga strikes there. It's not perfect or even, perhaps the best, but if feels workable. I just wrote up an AAR on a Close Quarters class I took with John Holschen while I derived a lot of value from it, if I were to critique one thing, it was that with untrained people with whom you're not working regularly (as I do in Krav) it's hard (and potentially dangerous) to go as intense as you might otherwise. Just to give an idea of what's happened to me at Krav, here's my arm a week after one class (I have way too many photos like this). I'm hoping injuries were not too much worse than this:
https://plus.google.com/photos/101859722493968312512/albums/5745464535617497425?authkey=CM2Z2JW7x-mUTQ

You've got a point, but the purpose of the class isn't teaching a single school of martial arts......the purpose isn't to teach "ninjitsu A" and not "ninjitsu B" simply because he's an instructor in the "ninjitsu A" school.

There really isn't anyone (that I know of) that teaches the integration of BJJ and greco-roman wrestling into a weapons based environment like Craig does. On the other hand, there's a thousand places you could go to learn ninjitsu A, B or C and their house-grown techniques of strikes.....so it wouldn't really make sense for Craig to teach that stuff.

As it is, during the class I attended this year in Culpeper with Dropkick, we started getting a little too wrestling mat styled with our clinchwork at one point....Craig stomped that right then and there, reminding us that we're not wrestlers on a mat, so don't practice breaking a wrist tie in order to do some more grappling when you could eyejab him or kick him in the nuts instead.

I'm probably speaking beyond my bounds here, but I do believe Craig has experience with tons of martial arts, including strikes. I'll danger that if he thought they were applicable and could be used effectively after a 20 hour overview made for average dudes about combatives within a weapons based environment, then he'd be teaching them.

To your point, I will most definitely say that ECQC is about controlling the adversary in order to drink their milkshake and avoid a slugfest, and not just "break the wrist and walk away" and then shoot them from a distance....so that's invariably going to lead towards more grappling than strikes to knock a weapon out of someone's hand and still leave you open to attack otherwise. A driving factor in his instruction was the point that just drawing your gun and shooting them isn't enough.....you still need to be in an advantageous position otherwise before you draw your smoke-wagon. In the realm of reality, that most likely means grappling and close contact to control their hand movements and center of gravity, and not strikes that only do one thing....strike.

As for going full force, many of the techniques that Craig teaches can be practiced at full force...the biggest restriction being that he doesn't want people falling while entangled. I don't think anyone who's been to ECQC will say that it needed to be conducted with more intensity....

You'll love the course.

[zacbol]

You've got a point, but the purpose of the class isn't teaching a single school of martial arts......the purpose isn't to teach "ninjitsu A" and not "ninjitsu B" simply because he's an instructor in the "ninjitsu A" school.

There really isn't anyone (that I know of) that teaches the integration of BJJ and greco-roman wrestling into a weapons based environment like Craig does. On the other hand, there's a thousand places you could go to learn ninjitsu A, B or C and their house-grown techniques of strikes.....so it wouldn't really make sense for Craig to teach that stuff. As it is, during the class I attended this year in Culpeper with Dropkick, we started getting a little too wrestling mat styled with our clinchwork at one point....Craig stomped that right then and there, reminding us that we're not wrestlers on a mat, so don't practice breaking a wrist tie in order to do some more grappling when you could eyejab him or kick him in the nuts instead.

I'm probably speaking beyond my bounds here, but I do believe Craig has experience with tons of martial arts, including strikes. I'll danger that if he thought they were applicable and could be used effectively after a 20 hour overview made for average dudes about combatives within a weapons based environment, then he'd be teaching them.

To your point, I will most definitely say that ECQC is about controlling the adversary in order to drink their milkshake and avoid a slugfest, and not just "break the wrist and walk away" and then shoot them from a distance....so that's invariably going to lead towards more grappling than strikes to knock a weapon out of someone's hand and still leave you open to attack otherwise.

As for going full force, many of the techniques that Craig teaches can be practiced at full force...the biggest restriction being that he doesn't want people falling while entangled. I don't think anyone who's been to ECQC will say that it needed to be conducted with more intensity....

You'll love the course.
Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, I probably could have been more concise/clear, I wasn't suggesting he teach a certain style of combatives or martial arts or that there was a wrong or right way, more just curious about the statement that the training lead the OP to search for a BJJ school and whether that was an artifact of training that, since it was restricted to avoid injury, led to more grappling than might happen in the real world. Per the example you gave above, it sounds like Craig tries to avoid that. And just to be clear I wasn't asking for *more* intensity (it sounds like it's plenty intense), I was just trying to level set my expectations around how hurt one should expect to get. I'm hoping I can make it work. We'll see how the wife responds. Lol.

[SouthNarc]

What TGS said.

[TGS]

I was just trying to level set my expectations around how hurt one should expect to get. I'm hoping I can make it work. We'll see how the wife responds. Lol.

In my course there was one guy who bummed out his shoulder and had to take off Sunday, and my buddy who reinjured his foot and had to sit out the car evo. He had a torn ATF about a year ago, and he bruised it up good during the course. Thankfully there was an SF medic in our course, who came over and examined it and told him that if he did one more evolution he was sure to tear it all up again with little hope of it actually healing this time around. I have muscular problems in my lower back, so I completely expected to not fully participate. As it was, on Saturday I had to do yoga and 30 minutes of pool therapy to be able to participate at all the next day, and used my TENS unit just to get through the Sunday morning shooting portion. We also had a 300lbs asthmatic service-disabled OIF veteran who gave it his all but had to sit out after a certain point.

So, come prepared. No ones trying to get injured, and I definitely would not call it an injury prone course....but if you are predisposed to certain conditions or nursing something then you should definitely expect that to rear its ugly head.

See how the wife responds? Bring her too :cool:

[phil_in_cs]

I asked Craig about striking at ECQC this past weekend in Texas, and he said he doesn't include much of it for a couple of reasons. The primary one is most people can't strike worth a shit. Even in an MMA match, you see many ineffectual strikes thrown, and if you're striking then one of his limbs is free and possibly grabbing a knife or gun.

In order to strike well you must have a very solid base, and too many people will give up that base to get offensive with the strikes. Once the base is given up, if the strike isn't a KO, they are left without base and get crushed into a FUT.

Remember this is a 20 hour class, and there's only so much time to teach skills. What would you give up to teach striking? The 2 on 1 evo? The fight inside a car? Weapons access while grounded?

[TGS]

Remember this is a 20 hour class, and there's only so much time to teach skills. What would you give up to teach striking? The 2 on 1 evo? The fight inside a car? Weapons access while grounded?

And what's amazing is how much flight time you get on the skills he does teach, even when breaking down 1 technique into multiple steps and still getting lots of reps in on each individual step, and then putting it all together as one for another good amount of reps. It's a phenomenal balance of enough techniques and enough reps.

[Prdator]

There really isn't anyone (that I know of) that teaches the integration of BJJ and greco-roman wrestling into a weapons based environment like Craig does.


Just a FYI to the Board, Mike Brown and Brandon Bennett does an Outstanding job of teaching the same type of integration of hand to hand in a weapon based environment in there CQT ( Close Quarters Tactics ) at the United Sates Shooting Academy http://www.usshootingacademy.com/training_course.aspx?id=15

[phil_in_cs]

I asked Craig about striking at ECQC this past weekend in Texas, and he said he doesn't include much of it for a couple of reasons. The primary one is most people can't strike worth a shit. Even in an MMA match, you see many ineffectual strikes thrown, and if you're striking then one of his limbs is free and possibly grabbing a knife or gun.


Sorry, forgot to include a key bit: The exception to this (being very effective in strikes) is when you've really gotten to a really dominate position, such as a full mount. At that point, anyone is very effective at ground and pound, so effective by instinct it doesn't merit much coaching. Again, getting the position first is the key point, not fist/knife hand/hammer fist/elbow/forearm.

[Dropkick]

Mitchell, Great thread, I really like how you included your perspective as a lawyer on the material.


As it is, during the class I attended this year in Culpeper with Dropkick, we started getting a little too wrestling mat styled with our clinchwork at one point....Craig stomped that right then and there, reminding us that we're not wrestlers on a mat, so don't practice breaking a wrist tie in order to do some more grappling when you could eyejab him or kick him in the nuts instead.

The material that is taught in ECQC is specifically geared to handling people who are possibly armed. With that being said, plenty of strikes do come out in the evos. It's very interesting to watch people in the evos, because sometimes you can see what sort of training they've had previously by how they handle themselves in the FUT. I remember one guy who have trained in Kali for a number of years, and when he got his fixed blade out he went to work on dudes.

But does that mean everyone should run out and train in Kali? Not necessarily. The ECQC material draws from a lot of different arts, and is applied to the context of a weapons based environment. When you see a comment like "I went to ECQC and now I want to train in ABC" it's usually because that person identify an area where their training was lacking. For instance, every time I got my Sims pistol into play, I could make good hits. During the range portion I was making decent hits too. So, I don't -need- more firearms training right now. However, doing the evos, if I was on bottom on the ground, I was generally screwed. It was clearly obvious I that I need to work on grounded grappling. Since then I've looked more into BJJ because it seems to be the best thing going these days for grounded work. The class shows you your weaknesses so you can do something about them and become well rounded.

[SouthNarc]

I can't express to you guys how happy it makes me, to see everyone understand WHY the curriculum is structured the way it is, and WHY the emphasis on a particular technical element is emphasized over another. It's incredibly important that people get the strategy template and the roadmap for continual improvement beyond the 20 hours.

I'm impressed men!

[shootist26]

Is this class appropriate for people who have 0 experience with anything close quarters/fighting/grappling/combatives/etc?

I badly want to take this class within the next year or so

[jar]

Is this class appropriate for people who have 0 experience with anything close quarters/fighting/grappling/combatives/etc?

I badly want to take this class within the next year or so

I had no experience whatsoever when I took the class for the first time. It was pretty overwhelming, but it was definitely worthwhile.

[Cecil Burch]

Is this class appropriate for people who have 0 experience with anything close quarters/fighting/grappling/combatives/etc?

I badly want to take this class within the next year or so

Absolutely. Southnarc DOES NOT throw you in the deep end without teaching you how to at least dog paddle. And afterwards you will have a great idea on how to further your training intelligently.

[Cecil Burch]

One question, you mention the amount of grappling and wanting to take up BJJ afterward. The thing I like about what you've described is that it sounds pretty intense. That said, did Craig speak to the fact you weren't/aren't actually striking people in the same way you would be in real life? It seems like this would unnaturally slant things towards grappling because if you aren't actually hitting someone in the face, joints, etc invariably a fight will go that way. That's always been the catch-22 with any combative or martial art in my experience. If you do what's most effective, you can't really practice it full force. Conversely, if you unnaturally restrict what you're going to do, you aren't using the most effective tools for the job but you are able to more effectively practice. I tend to favor the latter myself.



As others have said, there is plenty of striking in the evos, depending on the respective skill and knowledge of each participant. However, the big thing that restricts striking is not an artificially imposed limit, but the simple fact that once an attachment is made (whether vertical clinch or horizontal grapple), it is incredibly easy for even a beginner to smother and negate incoming strikes. I have seen in evos where a total beginner completely smothered and then dominated another attendee who was an experienced MMA and kali practitioner (at least by his own account - he wanted everyone to know how "good" he was). For someone who is not used to the clinch or inexperienced in dealing with a good grappler, striking always seems like an easy answer. It's not.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

When you see a comment like "I went to ECQC and now I want to train in ABC" it's usually because that person identify an area where their training was lacking. For instance, every time I got my Sims pistol into play, I could make good hits. During the range portion I was making decent hits too. So, I don't -need- more firearms training right now. However, doing the evos, if I was on bottom on the ground, I was generally screwed. It was clearly obvious I that I need to work on grounded grappling. Since then I've looked more into BJJ because it seems to be the best thing going these days for grounded work. The class shows you your weaknesses so you can do something about them and become well rounded.

Yep.

Pretty much my experience and thoughts. The audit revealed "FAIL" on grappling, and that is unacceptable.

It's an area that can't be compensated for with a "Well, I just won't let him take me down!" or "I'll just shoot him!" or "I don't need to grapple, I'll use by backup gun!".

You can't grapple your way out of a beyond contact distance shooting, so what makes someone think they can get around a contact distance problem with a firearm?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

If you want another chance to use me as a wrestling dummy, see the classes posted for June 3...

Because as we all know, it's hillarious to beat up Mitchell...(I promise, I won't gas the class this time...would I lie?)

[BaiHu]

As others have said, there is plenty of striking in the evos, depending on the respective skill and knowledge of each participant. However, the big thing that restricts striking is not an artificially imposed limit, but the simple fact that once an attachment is made (whether vertical clinch or horizontal grapple), it is incredibly easy for even a beginner to smother and negate incoming strikes. I have seen in evos where a total beginner completely smothered and then dominated another attendee who was an experienced MMA and kali practitioner (at least by his own account - he wanted everyone to know how "good" he was). For someone who is not used to the clinch or inexperienced in dealing with a good grappler, striking always seems like an easy answer. It's not.

I think the striking difficulty in ECQC or any 'sparring' situation is safety, style and destroying the 'no-douche zone'.

First, every striking style has it's methods/styles of attack and protocol for striking location/power. When we spar in my system, we allow strikes anywhere with anything at full power with 4 oz gloves with the following caveats: 1) no elbows or knees, 2) no leg kicks to the knee/thigh, but we allow leg checks to the knee or to block kicks (we rarely kick above the belt), 3) light contact to the body, but pulled punches to the head, although we often end up being very light to the head depending on an unspoken agreement of like-minded, similar experienced combatants.

We move very fast and we don't count strikes that haven't landed within 1-3 inches even if unblocked. This makes for a very intimate group of people, who have learned to trust each other over years (our average student has been studying with us for 5-7 yrs). We do not allow anyone to spar with under a year's worth of experience unless they have studied for years and have been evaluated by me and my Sensei (teacher). We also have two forms of sparring: 1 is for points, indicating that a strike was well placed and hard enough that the fight would have turned in the favor of the striker and no points, where strikes that land are often ignored so the fight can go on and see how each combatant can recover from information overload.

OTOH, Craig has the responsibility of running a safe, pressure-cooker class in 20 hours over 3 days and he does it flawlessly, which is a totally different scenario.

Second, I feel that ECQC does an incredible job of creating a stressful enough environment so that you are learning with consequences, but not to the point that you can't continue the class. He teaches one hand strike and no kicks and I understand why. For one, you can pick up striking easily and drop it into his curriculum and secondly, it is too difficult to understand each student's varying degree of sensitivity, skill and control with strikes against a moving and non-consensual partner, whereas grappling is universal enough that you can more safely grapple without having to worry about people 'pulling' the grappling moves. By pulling, I mean reducing power/intensity.

Lastly, if striking occurs in a class like this, it is more likely to destroy the 'no-douche zone'. It is one thing to get wrestled down the ground and pinned or shot with your own gun, it is quite another to get cold cocked by a sucker punch during an evo.

In the 15 years that I've been teaching, only one time did we have an incident that was really ugly and it was b/w two people, who knew each other since they were teenagers and they were currently in their late 40's. One night, they were sparring and it got a little heated when the one friend dropped his hands to taunt him-before we could stop the fight (for being a douche), the other guy threw a roundhouse kick while the 'taunting guy' lifted his leg to check the kick. He broke his good friend's tibia and fibula in that 2 seconds of poor judgement and 'douchey taunt' and the other guy learned that he did not know how to control his anger and now has metal in his leg to remind him of that moment.

I think ECQC is a masterful example of what can happen and a great crucible for finding out what you are lacking, but from what I experienced, striking was not the focus of the class and therefore it a) was something I refrained from for the aforementioned reasons (other than the one strike, b/c it is safe while the FIST is on) and b) was not the reason I attended ECQC. This class, IMO, is not about how tough you are or how awesome of a boxer, muay thai, pikal, FMA or MMA fighter you are, it is about learning how to transition from an unarmed situation to a potentially armed situation and what to do when your fantasy breaks about how tough you were or how your .5 second draw would stop anyone on the planet other than Usain Bolt.

Did I get the lesson, Craig??

[Cecil Burch]

I
Lastly, if striking occurs in a class like this, it is more likely to destroy the 'no-douche zone'. It is one thing to get wrestled down the ground and pinned or shot with your own gun, it is quite another to get cold cocked by a sucker punch during an evo.

In the 15 years that I've been teaching, only one time did we have an incident that was really ugly and it was b/w two people, who knew each other since they were teenagers and they were currently in their late 40's. One night, they were sparring and it got a little heated when the one friend dropped his hands to taunt him-before we could stop the fight (for being a douche), the other guy threw a roundhouse kick while the 'taunting guy' lifted his leg to check the kick. He broke his good friend's tibia and fibula in that 2 seconds of poor judgement and 'douchey taunt' and the other guy learned that he did not know how to control his anger and now has metal in his leg to remind him of that moment.

I think ECQC is a masterful example of what can happen and a great crucible for finding out what you are lacking, but from what I experienced, striking was not the focus of the class and therefore it a) was something I refrained from for the aforementioned reasons (other than the one strike, b/c it is safe while the FIST is on) and b) was not the reason I attended ECQC. This class, IMO, is not about how tough you are or how awesome of a boxer, muay thai, pikal, FMA or MMA fighter you are, it is about learning how to transition from an unarmed situation to a potentially armed situation and what to do when your fantasy breaks about how tough you were or how your .5 second draw would stop anyone on the planet other than Usain Bolt.

Did I get the lesson, Craig??

Just because Craig does not teach many strikes, doesn't mean there won't or shouldnt be any coming out in the evos. I have been through ECQC 4 times now, and in 3 of them, there was a lot of striking, and it never turned into doucheville. The most recent one in Phoenix had a couple of good ones, and the one two years ago had a very long evo that was a perfect example of "dirty boxing" where one guy ended up stuck against a truck and eating a lot of shots. No ego problems resulted.

IME the limitations on the strikes are a result of realistic pressure and the overwhelming problem that most people have little knowledge of how to deal with grappling, not that people purposefully limit their own striking.

Not to say that some people have not done that ( I certainly turn that aspect of my game down a lot), but that is a very small reason for their being less striking than you would think. Craig never tells people to not strike.

[BaiHu]

Just because Craig does not teach many strikes, doesn't mean there won't or shouldnt be any coming out in the evos. I have been through ECQC 4 times now, and in 3 of them, there was a lot of striking, and it never turned into doucheville. The most recent one in Phoenix had a couple of good ones, and the one two years ago had a very long evo that was a perfect example of "dirty boxing" where one guy ended up stuck against a truck and eating a lot of shots. No ego problems resulted.

IME the limitations on the strikes are a result of realistic pressure and the overwhelming problem that most people have little knowledge of how to deal with grappling, not that people purposefully limit their own striking.

Not to say that some people have not done that ( I certainly turn that aspect of my game down a lot), but that is a very small reason for their being less striking than you would think. Craig never tells people to not strike.

Thanks for the response, Cecil. This being my first ECQC, I wasn't sure what to expect and I wanted to do my best at leaving what I lean towards out of the class and try and give myself fully to new material.

This being my first 'unarmed' seminar, I'm leary of mixing it up with strangers that I spend very little time with. Among people I train with daily/weekly, I'm much more willing to push the envelope, b/c everyone 'knows' that accidents happen.

MUC, IMO, is a useful tool in and out of training. I certainly don't want to hurt anyone in a training exercise (FIST helmets came off even without contact at times) and I certainly don't want anyone to take a shot at me and potentially compromise my livelihood.

Perhaps when I return to ECQC I will be more comfortable with letting a bit of my comfort zone come out and mix it up with the material presented.

I understand that you are a BJJ instructor, correct? Perhaps you were in your comfort zone already and felt that letting your hands loosen up a bit was where you defaulted? Did you feel more comfortable going full throttle with each consecutive ECQC class?

I find, especially with someone new and possibly unfamiliar with what is 'acceptable roughness' in an exchange, that it is hard to balance where a person is going to recognize you 'hitting' (in quotes, b/c aiming for real damage in a training program w/o gloves is inappropriate, IMO) them and responding to that versus actually hitting them and now they not only need to respond, but it turns into a problem.

ETA: In the end, since only one person threw strikes (some time after my 2 vs 1 evo), I was unaware that they were openly allowed. My bad for not seeking an understanding of the parameters of the drill. Thanks for clarifying, Cecil.