One of the core principles of Krav Maga, and the one that really sold me on the system was, “If the threat/attack is life threatening attack the attack, if it’s a non-life-threatening attack the attacker”. An example of this would be someone strangling/choking you versus someone grabbing your lapel or wrist. A wrist or lapel grab doesn’t pose any immediate threat to life whereas an attack that is restricting an airway does; therefore the choke/strangle has to be attacked and dealt with before anything else i.e. it is the number one priority. In the case of a lapel or wrist grab, the threat and attack itself doesn’t cause any immediate danger, it’s what is going to follow that does e.g. the punch or head-butt etc that follows the grab. In this case it is best to attack the attacker in order to prevent and disrupt them from making this second phase assault.

Obviously this isn’t something you think about in the heat of the moment as you certainly have no time to ask questions when violence occurs. However it is a principle upon which all Krav Maga techniques are based. Having studied many martial arts, I have seen many seemingly great solutions to various attacks and threats however many of these fail to differentiate between the nature of a life-threatening attack and a non-life-threatening attack. An attacker on the street will always deny you time and distance, and because of this it is important to practice a system that prioritizes and recognizes the differences and ultimate consequences between various types of attack e.g. with a lapel grab you have a degree of time as the attack itself poses no threat to life, with a choke/strangle you have no time, you have to deal with it immediately – you don’t and your unconscious and if you’re unconscious you might as well be dead.

Sometimes you have to “trade” a life-threatening attack for a non-life threatening one. It may be that you start to deal with a rear strangle, attacking the attack, and your assailant responds to your attempted defense by turning the strangle into a headlock (a non-life threatening attack). At this point you can stop dealing with the attack itself and concentrate on dealing with the attacker e.g. attacks to the groin and eyes etc.

                I always try and work along a continuum when I have to deal with violent individuals whether their attack would be categorized as non or life threatening. This is as follows:

1)      Disrupt

2)      Damage

3)      Destroy

4)      Disengage

The first thing you should always try and do is “disrupt” the attack/attacker, whether it is a life threatening assault or not. If it’s a choke, disrupt the choke; if it’s a grab disrupt the attacker. The most important thing is not to let your assailant get a “rhythm” to their assault and control the movement of the fight. Your initial defense should involve some form of disruption. This is key to buy you back both time and/or distance.

Your initial assault on an assailant, whether it occurs after defending/dealing with a life threatening attack or as an attack on an attacker making a non-life-threatening attack should aim to “damage” them in a way that makes it difficult/impossible to make a further attack. This normally means attacking weak and vital areas such as the eyes, throat or groin. Equally it may involve shutting down a person’s ability to move with a knee or kick to the Quadriceps/legs. The damaging blow should act to stun the person so that they are unable to follow up their assault and so create an opportunity for you to continue you yours. Remember self-defense is allowing someone to do something to you, fighting is something you do with someone else and an assault is what you do to another person. Your damaging strike is you creating the opportunity to assault your assailant.

Some people question why you need to “destroy” your assailant. An attacker will never stop attacking unless you stop them from doing so. I remember teaching a defense to a bear hug in class one day, which involved sticking your thumbs in to your attacker’s eyes. Somebody in class asked if you would push/gouge the eyes, “just enough”. On the street there is no time to “measure” your response: you have to act forcibly, decisively and with full commitment. You can be sure your assailant isn’t holding back and so to do so yourself is handicapping yourself in a potentially fatal way. You must assault the person to the point where they are unable/unwilling to continue the fight.

Disengagement. At some point you need to leave the situation. Staying too long dealing with an individual can create the opportunities for them to get back in the fight (the more desperate they become the more extreme their attack may become) and/or for third parties to become involved.

Your goal is always to come away from a violent incident with the least amount of injuries sustained. It is not to try and dispense righteous justice and inflict pain in order to punish your assailant or to make some statement about how \"badass\" you are. Rather you do what you do in order to leave the situation and go back to living your life. Real world violence should be viewed as an interruption to your life and not something you want to live for or have your life defined by. I have little time for the behavior of some martial artists who posture and strut, as if their supposed (and normally unproven) ability gives them the power to become some dispenser of justice or even somebody that should be feared and respected. Such immaturity should be left in the schoolyard as it is not an appropriate attitude for either avoiding or dealing with the violence we are likely to face on the street. The point of learning to fight/defend yourself is so that nobody is able to take who you are away from yourself; to be able to preserve your identity against those who threaten it/you – your ability to do this does not give you any more rights than that and is certainly something that shouldn’t be put on display or paraded about.

If you can disengage from a situation before it begins, whatever hit your ego may have to take in the process, you should. You have to disengage at the end of a fight anyway. Why go through the dangers and risks of a physical conflict for the same result and end. You fight only when you cannot live with the consequences of not fighting. Not fighting can take as much, often more character than letting your ego and emotion drive you into a conflict. If your identity and idea of self is not well defined then you will oftentimes find yourself responding aggressively and violently to situations that really when put on paper and considered rationally require no such response.

Disengagement before or after a physical conflict should be at the crux of our training. Next time you are on the mats practising gun disarms, dealing with knife threats be sure to put emphasis on the disengagement phase i.e. move away from the aggressor each time you practice. In stress tests, practice handing over wallets etc when threatened, and if you are the \"aggressor\", sometimes walk away with the imaginary wallet when the person responds in this fashion. Disengagement (& Avoidance) must be part of your training.

I look forward to seeing everyone on the mats this week.