Tweet
I think the answer to your question is that they were asked to plan a short term training plan with very little follow on training in the students units. I suppose if I thought that graduation from the course I was teaching would be the last time my students ever trained, I would have adopted a similar training plan, with equally poor results.
Fortunately that is not what we had in mind. Our training is geared toward building units with almost self-supporting continuous training in units.
There are inherent weaknesses in the institutional training plan that militaries like to adopt when it comes to combatives training. A good example of this was the Marine Corps experience with the LINE system. They had a instructor training course that was eight or ten weeks long and upon graduation you were a “Close Combat Instructor” or something like it. The problem with that sort of plan is that Combatives and the teaching of combatives takes longer eight or ten weeks to become “expert” at. Imagine if you took you eight year old to the local martial arts school and you found out that the instructors entire qualification to run the school was an eight or ten week course that he attended six years earlier.
Our plan is to create continuing training and a cadre of experienced instructors throughout the Army. We do that by having many levels of instructor training and corresponding instructor positions throughout the Army. For example:
The first course a student goes through is the level one course. It is five days long and is geared around someone who will be introducing new students to the basics of the system. This course is short, but very physical and at the end of it the students are only expected to know the “what” and “how” of a limited set of techniques.
These students go out into the Army and teach at that level for at least several months and then come back for the level two course. Whereas students of the first course were only expected to know what and how, students of the second course, which is of slightly longer duration, are taught the why of the level one techniques. This is accomplished by showing them the next level of technique. So that at the end of level two they know that if a level one student puts his hand hear rather than where he was taught, this or that could happen. It is designed around putting supervisory instructors in the force who will insure that level one training is being done correctly and to standards. An example would be in a basic training unit, various level one graduates would do the instruction but there would be a level two graduate who was responsible for the training.
After filling this role for a while the student is then eligible for the level three course. This course is of a longer duration, but realizing the limitations of institutional training is geared toward road mapping the student’s future growth and teaching the training methodologies of the first two courses. For example, level two students are taught a series of takedowns. In the level three course they are shown the relationship of these takedowns in a chain and taught the principle that these techniques actually illustrate. They are then taught how they can expand on that training. They are also taught how to structure successful unit training programs and how to conduct scenario driven training so that combatives becomes integrated with the all of the other training conducted by the unit.
Of course there is a fourth level course, which is mostly about the pedagogy of the other courses, scenario based training, creating successful unit programs etc.
The basic idea is to rope students in for the long hall. By the time someone has completed level four they will have only a limited amount of institutional training, but they will have actually been training and teaching for years.
Where do these civilian “experts” come from, mostly from other arts that have little to do with CQC. I could cite examples if you wish, but almost any civilian expert you can name’s training history is in something other than CQC. What spark of inspiration makes a San Soo expert an expert in CQC, or a wrestler, or a Judoka, or a Muay Thai fighter? As for the experience of police officers, it is more constructive to talk about their level of training, which is almost universally low. To argue the other end is like arguing that the average SWAT team knows more about CQB than Delta because they do it more. It is true that they do it more, but they also have very little time to be introspective or to actually get themselves to the next level by training. This is not to belittle the experience and expertise that many of these men have. There are several who combine their experiences as a police officer with the training they have received from various non-CQC martial arts in very innovative and insightful ways. They are in fact our primary resource. At the present time my main job is to pull in the lessons that these men have to teach and then create the combatives culture in the Army that at least has the potential to surpass them.
Matt Larsen
Fortunately that is not what we had in mind. Our training is geared toward building units with almost self-supporting continuous training in units.
There are inherent weaknesses in the institutional training plan that militaries like to adopt when it comes to combatives training. A good example of this was the Marine Corps experience with the LINE system. They had a instructor training course that was eight or ten weeks long and upon graduation you were a “Close Combat Instructor” or something like it. The problem with that sort of plan is that Combatives and the teaching of combatives takes longer eight or ten weeks to become “expert” at. Imagine if you took you eight year old to the local martial arts school and you found out that the instructors entire qualification to run the school was an eight or ten week course that he attended six years earlier.
Our plan is to create continuing training and a cadre of experienced instructors throughout the Army. We do that by having many levels of instructor training and corresponding instructor positions throughout the Army. For example:
The first course a student goes through is the level one course. It is five days long and is geared around someone who will be introducing new students to the basics of the system. This course is short, but very physical and at the end of it the students are only expected to know the “what” and “how” of a limited set of techniques.
These students go out into the Army and teach at that level for at least several months and then come back for the level two course. Whereas students of the first course were only expected to know what and how, students of the second course, which is of slightly longer duration, are taught the why of the level one techniques. This is accomplished by showing them the next level of technique. So that at the end of level two they know that if a level one student puts his hand hear rather than where he was taught, this or that could happen. It is designed around putting supervisory instructors in the force who will insure that level one training is being done correctly and to standards. An example would be in a basic training unit, various level one graduates would do the instruction but there would be a level two graduate who was responsible for the training.
After filling this role for a while the student is then eligible for the level three course. This course is of a longer duration, but realizing the limitations of institutional training is geared toward road mapping the student’s future growth and teaching the training methodologies of the first two courses. For example, level two students are taught a series of takedowns. In the level three course they are shown the relationship of these takedowns in a chain and taught the principle that these techniques actually illustrate. They are then taught how they can expand on that training. They are also taught how to structure successful unit training programs and how to conduct scenario driven training so that combatives becomes integrated with the all of the other training conducted by the unit.
Of course there is a fourth level course, which is mostly about the pedagogy of the other courses, scenario based training, creating successful unit programs etc.
The basic idea is to rope students in for the long hall. By the time someone has completed level four they will have only a limited amount of institutional training, but they will have actually been training and teaching for years.
There are many professional civilian CQC instructors, some good, some excellent, some not so good. Professional sport fighters are all civilians. Civilians and police officers are called on to use their hand to hand combat skills much more often than most soldiers.
Matt Larsen
I WANT TO KNOW!!!he's an ex-spetsnaz, ex- spets trainer ..... but what would he know ........i'll be quiet now
Comment