The title of this article about winning violence refers to the way I like to answer questions that have nothing to do with the needs of violence—questions about legality, appropriateness, blocking, defending against this or that attack, “but what if he,” etc.
The worst among us are the best at winning violence. They are feared because they are socially unencumbered and shockingly direct in their action.
The winners in violence aren’t thinking in terms of what their victim will do, or about protecting themselves. They just hurt people.
The losers (and potential losers) in violence are preoccupied with a whole host of things that just don’t matter.
Or, another way to look at it, anything that doesn’t result in an injury is a waste of your time.
The winners don’t bother with such things. The losers focus on them, train them, and grip them tight like magic charms against the dark.
I’ve always said a big part of our training, beyond the simple and straightforward mechanics of injury, is to give you the perspective of winning violence. To get you to look at it the way they do, to go where they would go, do what they would do, see what they would see.
What I’ve learned over the years is that the later in the course I open the floor to questions, the fewer trivial ones I have to field. If I open it up immediately after the introduction session, it’s a lot of “but what if he…” and “how do I defend against…” inquiries. If I wait until everyone has put in a couple hours of physical work, engaging in target practice on the human machine, the questions are much more focused, terse, and of a purely mechanical nature: “How do I break this?” and, “Where should I be to break that?”
That’s the kind of thinking for winning violence. That perspective, coupled with a little bit of mechanical know-how, greatly improves your chances of survival in the worst situations. And it puts you on par with the worst people out there.