Hock Hoccheim Seminar Review

[Thai Bri]

Hock Hochheim’s “Worst Case Scenario” seminar, London, 23rd/24th April 2005.

Background

Hock Hoccheim doesn’t always get a good write up from people in the “reality fighting” business but his supporters out number his critics. As usual it is the loudest critics that have least personal experience. I’m also good at criticising things, but do make a point of getting this first hand experience in order to do so. This 2 day seminar was one of a series given by Hock in London, and took place at the excellent venue of the Tokei Martial Arts Centre near to London Bridge. His chief instructor in the UK is Joe Hubbard, and he was also present.

Day 1.

It was due to start at 2pm, but there was a late start due to confusion re another class in the training area. This was not the fault of the Hochheim people and caused 30 minutes delay. But Hock was amenable to stay late for no extra charge, so no one lost out. 18 students attended and, for the size of the training area, that was an ideal number. The scheduled finishing time was 6pm.

Hock and Joe provided a brief introduction, outlining some basic ground rules (along the lines of agreeing contact levels with training partners etc.). As the day progressed Hock punctuated the training with anecdotes from his past. These were pretty entertaining, and was a light relief from the inverted snobbery of the “I don’t tell war stories” approach that some people recommend (and, of course, thereby implying that they have thousands of impressive war stories to tell…..).

All in all, my first impressions were favourable. Hock and Joe are friendly people with lots of enthusiasm, and I was looking forwards to seeing some new things.

We started with “Body Bump” drills. This struck a chord with me, as I have trained many arts that do not take into account the torso to torso smashing that goes on during a real fight. Things are fine when you’re fighting with someone trained to keep the “appropriate” distance, but this can lead to a false sense of security when someone crashes right through your guard and crashes into you. Unless, of course, you have trained for it.

This led onto one of Hock’s main themes for the seminar – that real fighting is more like American Football / Rugby than some of the supposed fight training out there. When you look at real fights it’s hard to disagree with him. We weren’t just bumping into each other of course, and a few techniques were taught (like “bull whipping” people, and avoidance footwork). Hock summed up the necessity of the training –
“If you are not closing, you are not fighting”.

Another theme throughout his training emerged, that techniques practiced on your feet were also practiced from the floor. This introduced the “hip heist” that, no doubt, is familiar to grapplers. It is a move to escape the mount position, and was done in a slightly different way than I have seen before.

Hock has been criticised for being too complex. He trains a move, then the counter, then the counter to the counter etc. I can sympathise with that criticism, but did appreciate the depth of knowledge he had. Maybe many of us don’t believe that we should over complicate things, but that does not mean that a dedicated student could not achieve a practical application of these moves. He differentiated between early, mid and late phases of counters, stressing that different responses were needed depending on how well the opponent had applied a technique on you. Again, this made sense, but is not everyone’s cup of tea. He does have to cater for a broad range of skill levels though, so some of this would not be aimed at the beginner.

Hock calls his system “scientific”, and he certainly analyses things well. For example, he doesn’t just outline the fact that people’s bodies “bump” together during real fights, he identifies the three different ways in which they do so, or the three things people may do when grabbed etc. But he doesn’t do this to be pedantic, he does it to explore more scientific methods of achieving victory. This is world’s apart from some of the “just hit him” type training that some people engage in.

He outlined four basic ranges of a clinch, along with many methods of overcoming them. Though I wasn’t a fan of all the techniques shown some of it was pretty simple and brutal. And I kept picking little things up here and there that I feel would suit me very well.

We moved on to include weapons in the mix, as Hock considers a personal protection system to include unarmed, stick, knife and gun work. A drill countering someone drawing a weapon was covered and, once again, a variation of the same technique was done both standing and on the floor. When clinching assume your opponent is always armed and/or will try to disarm you. 90% of all people are right handed, so it behoves you to stay on your opponent’s right side to give you a better chance of an early phase counter to a weapon draw.

After a little more weapon countering the day officially closed. Unfortunately I could not stay late for additional training due to a previous engagement.

Day 2.

This was scheduled for 11am to 4pm. Hock started with his analysis of the 4 worst case scenarios regarding a knife wielding assailant, involving such titles as the “Tight Knife Swinger”, “Prison Stabber”, “10 to 2 Ice Pick” and being on the ground underneath an armed attacker. Techniques of the day involved some counters to these attacks.

I am in no way a knife fighter and my knowledge is limited in this area, so my own opinions on these methods have to be seen in this light. There were things that I found difficult to do but, like I say, I’m a beginner at this stuff. For example, one counter to an over-head “ice pick” type attack involved a rising block and then “snaking” in to the weapon hand, somehow managing to make the bad guy drop the knife. Not only did I struggle, I also worried that a real knife would cut my own hand off. But others seemed able to do it, so maybe it was just me. But, once again, someone putting the time and energy into the training would have a chance of knowing when to use the technique, especially if he had sight of what kind of knife he was facing. But, for me, I’d prefer to use less techniques that have a wide application rather than too broad a menu from which to choose from. Hock later explained how to trap the knife wielding hand under your own arm and then strike. This came much easier to me and would probably be my preferred, even natural, response. This would be the type of thing I worked on (and now do). The range would make a difference though, and it would probably be easier to “snake” from a greater distance, whereas the arm wrap is for someone closer in.

He was careful to differentiate between all out, committed, powerful knife attacks and rapid/repetitive stabs. He knows that things that work against the former may not work against the latter, and has adjusted his techniques accordingly.

Another theme of the seminar involved realistic training, and how sport training can actually inhibit your performance in a real fight. This was illustrated by talking about knife training. How can you realistically “spar” with training knives if insufficient protective equipment is used on the face? Some of the best attacks involve attacking the eyes, so it would be unreal and counter productive to train without this target being safely available. It makes sense to me.

When we moved onto stick work I became totally lost. My knowledge of stick work involves holding one end and hitting the bad guy over the head with the other. So, once again, my views on what took place must be taken in that vein.

After outlining 5 classifications of stick disarming we moved on to try some. My training partner was also only at novice level, so we ended up calling on Joe for advice quite a lot. My overall impression of the techniques is that they were too complex, and would require years of dedicated training to be able to use them. However, paradoxically, Hock said words to the effect of “if it doesn’t work, just beat the piss out of him”. Now that was something I was happy with, instead of the counter to counter stick entwining. But there were people there training for a grading, so this stuff was included for their benefit.

As an aside Hock gave his views on the value of adrenalin. People agonise over whether it is good or bad for you to have in a potential conflict. Does it make you freeze? Does it give you extra power? Why does it help some but not others? Hock’s reasoning was that those in good physical condition benefit from it, but the fatties of this world just can’t handle it’s effects. The moral of the story? Get in shape.

We then did a crash course in using a knife ourselves, different grips, cutting methods, angles of attack etc., as well as some combination work. We blasted through this section as, of course, much of it would have been too basic for many attendees. Personally I enjoyed it, and would have liked to do more.

Another common theme throughout the seminar was how many techniques seemed to transcend what actual weapon you were using. Some knife work (attack or defence) was the same as some stick work etc. This may go some way to quieten those who feel Hock has too many techniques. They do have a wider application than originally thought.

The “block/pass/pin drill had been in evidence throughout the seminar. I am not a great believer in drills myself but, rather than merely perform it repetitively, the techniques were inserted into the drill as you went along. This could be complicated (hence the critics) but, with practice, the techniques could just fly out at the opponent at will, giving the arms the ability to think for themselves. Hock certainly looked super competent with it. Yes, I bet it took him a long time to get this ability. But no, I would not like to try and strike him (with or without a weapon in my hand).

Lastly we went through some “less than lethal” options, but I got the impression that he showed them because he’d be less likely to get sued if a student killed someone (ha ha).

Conclusion

I enjoyed the two days training and did get some things from it that will definitely use. Yes, they do teach a massive amount of differing techniques. I do not see myself trying to learn the lot, but the syllabus provides a rich menu of options from which you can take what suits you.

The training was not “scenario based” in the sense of acting out common street situations. This added element could be of value if they chose to present their material in this way in the future. For the most part the seminar was about what to do once the fight had already started.

No matter how complex some of the material became, there was still the “just beat the piss out of him” option available for Neanderthals like me. And the connections between the use of different weapons did make things a little easier to understand.

Working from the ground as well as standing up is worthy of favourable comment, and is far better than some of the ridiculous “anti grappling” and “counter grappling” that has done the rounds, especially from the people who say “just don’t go to the floor”. That, of course, is much easier said than done.

My own preference would have been to cover less material, but in more depth. Some of the things were covered so quickly that I failed to get any real understanding, but I do concede that they also had to cater for people who had more familiarity with his weapons.

But, all in all, I am glad that I went. I feel that I have taken some things away with me that I would, indeed, be able to use in a real fight. And what better testimonial is there than that?