Southpaw or Orthodox for Law Enforcement

Here it is.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]fearnloathingnyc wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]fearnloathingnyc wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I’ve trained with very highly respected and experienced RMA coaches/LEO instructors who say to go strong side forward and ones that say go weak side forward. In the end you simply need to make your decision and then work the hell out of your skills from that position; also realize that it’s always a good idea to be able to function from both stances as well as a neutral stance, seated, laying on the ground, sitting in your car, etc…as you could potentially start a confrontation in any position.

Here are some of the pros and cons that I can think of off the top of my head; hopefully some of the experienced LEO’s that post on this forum will chime in with more:

Orthodox (assuming right handed) pros-
-firearm is less easily accessible to being taken from you (assuming you can face opponent)
-generally you want a weapon in the rear hand if engaging someone who is unarmed (for same reason as above)
-you will likely learn to shoot from either an Isosceles stance (squared stance), or Weaver stance (with weak side leg forward), so if you practice fighting unarmed with a southpaw stance, you will have to switch to an orthodox or squared stance if you want to use your firearm, which is going to require extra time and/or distance which you may not have

Cons-
-weaker lead hand strike and lead leg strike, which also means in general you will have less neuromuscular coordination/speed/accuracy when/if utilizing other tools such as a night stick with the lead arm, or less range with the weapon if using it with your rear hand (bad for weapon on weapon scenarios)

Southpaw pros-
-strongest more neuromuscularly skilled hand (or weapon utilized) and leg will be closer to opponent meaning quicker delivery of attacks with lead side

Cons-
-again, you will need to switch from your regular stance to effectively fire your firearm
-easier access to weapon by unarmed assailant

Hope this helps, good luck.
[/quote]

Thanks a ton Sentoguy. This is very very helpful and a solid breakdown of the pros and cons. Awesome job man. The strongest and only con against the southpaw stance is that an unarmed assailant has easier access to the weapon (which you mentioned). If it weren’t for this reason, the choice would be easy.

The LEO instructors who you have trained with who recommend strong side forward, what are their thoughts on having the firearm on the front side? In other words, what they did say and believe in to help mitigate the serious concerns involved with having the firearm on the front side?

Thanks again for your very helpful post.[/quote]

No problem.

Their argument had to do primarily with being able to utilize the front hand as a more effective weapon (for striking) and that at a close range your first reaction are going to need to be unarmed anyway since there will be insufficient time to draw and utilize the weapon. It’s only after you’ve utilized empty hands stuff that you’ll be able to step back and access the weapon. In other words, generally a hard punch,elbow, shield, etc…to the bio computer/brain will interrupt/stop a person’s fixation on accessing your weapon/tool and give you the time/distance to access it yourself.

That said, they also teach a “gun shield” with the gun held in the rear (strong side back) for close quarters shooting.

So again, realistically you need to be competent from either stance, squared, or any other position that you regularly find yourself in. Also realize that while the balance and basic structural stance mechanics that boxing teaches and striking speed, power, timing, judgement, and accuracy that boxing teaches are extremely useful for an LEO, you really aren’t going to be dancing around like in a boxing match (or if you are, something went very wrong), so you only really need basic footwork for the most part.

I’m not suggesting that you don’t continue to practice and refine your boxing skills, in fact I’d highly recommend you continue to develop them. Just realize that as a LEO, you don’t want to ever wind up in a sparring match/boxing match against an assailant.

[/quote]

Thanks. I like their argument and it makes a lot of sense especially in my case. I agree with you that I should be prepared to utilize both stances because the unpredictability of law enforcement work could have me starting off in either an orthodox, squared, or southpaw stance. There are so many variables at work here.

As for boxing, although I really enjoy it, I do know the inherent limitations specifically in law enforcement where I am more likely to grapple with a perpetrator. I am going to transition over to Judo and Muay Thai training.

If you don’t mind me asking, do you know of some competent and highly respected training agencies who specialize in firearms tactics within the northeast? I am looking to supplement my department training with outside training.

Thanks a again for your very helpful comments.[/quote]

Where are you located in the Northeast? I know of some very knowledgeable instructors, but unsure of agencies.[/quote]

I am located in the State of New York. If you can recommend some knowledgeable instructors in the area, that would be awesome.

[quote]WN76 wrote:

Here it is. [/quote]

Definitely an eye opening video. Distance, knife and weapon disarmament are just as important as being quick to draw the firearm and strike accurately.

Thanks for sharing.

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Regarding CQ edged weapon stuff. First off, shit situation regardless. Any response that gets you home was the right one. Let me see if I can clarify a little. One of the members at our local PD was attacked out of nowhere by a guy with a blade. They were in a doorway and this dude decided, for whatever reason, that he should start stabbing her in the neck. Accessing her weapon, at that range while engaged with a guy who was trying to end her was just not practical. Both hands were tied up surviving. Disengaging was maybe practical but very difficult. She ended up getting him to ground and gaining control, hands cut to ratshit.

No way to tell, but IMO had she focused on getting to her gun instead of fighting the guy and removing his ability to stab her anymore, it might have turned out differently. Again, impossible to say. Like your example, she had a significant advantage over him in terms of physical ability and it was still a pretty bad scene. I believe Idaho (a mil/LEO poster) has a story about some scrawny little female who posed a fairly minimal threat unarmed but suddenly grabbed a knife from between the couch cushions and sliced is arm open pretty good. Fighting a knife wielding attacker, especially one of similar size/ability as yourself unarmed seems like an extremely bad strategy, to say the least.

It’s always a situational judgment call. If you can disengage and trade up your weapon system, absolutely do so, of course. However, I think it’s important to have a plan for when that’s not practical because sometimes it won’t be. In that case, aggressively attacking the attack, wrapping up and controlling the delivery system (arm/elbow, not hand/wrist) and continuing to attack (primarily with knees and or fixed inanimate objects) until you can ground the guy (or possibly create an opportunity to disengage and shoot) seems like not a bad play. Don’t get me wrong. I’m totally on board with shooting knife guy as a potential plan A and a better one where practical,

One of my old instructors set up a simulation based experiment with a number trained officers being attacked at extreme close quarters with training knives. Officers were not told ahead of time what was going to happen, simply to deal with the situation. The officers who got “cut/stabbed” the least were those who directly engaged with knees and elbows and brought the subject under control. Those who tried to disengage and shoot had a lot of difficulty and generally got contacted more times with the knife. It’s a small sample, but it’s food for thought…

Regarding “duty knives” they are obviously for cutting seatbelts, tape, rope if someone hangs themselves etc. They are definitely not at all for peeling someone the fuck off you when all else fails, but could be improvised for that purpose in emergency. Tacti-cool knives are better suited to all the above legitimate intended applications than non-tacti-cool variants for a variety of reasons.

A very small, inconspicuous fixed blade (i.e. Ka-Bar TDI law enforcement) that can be accessed with either hand has value as a backup when one hand or the other may be tied up (i.e. holding up the above mentioned hanging victim) and accessing/opening a clip-it folder might be problematic.[/quote]

Good stuff man. I see where you’re coming from, and I agree wholeheartedly.

I saw a video of a very similar scenario that your instructor set up. Cops were instructed to interact with a subject in a room who appeared to be unarmed. Well, the subject just happened to be Dan Insanto(IIRC). It was very eye opening. Being strapped isn’t all it’s made out to be. I’ll try to dig up the video…
[/quote]

Thanks for digging that up. It actually illustrates what I’m getting at pretty well. Only one of those officers looked like he did an effective of backpedalling to maintain distance so he could re-engage with his firearm. Generally bad guy’s fast forward is probably much faster than your fast backward, especially given the action/reaction gap. In training I like to tell people that I could beat Usain Bolt in the 100m… if I could run forward, he had to run backward and only I knew that we were gonna have a race and when it was gonna start.

Imagine how those scenarios might have turned out differently if right off the hop those officers crashed forward violently into the attack and started feeding knees/elbows etc (not critiquing anybody, those guys were set up to fail). Whether they were able trap the knife arm or not the attack would probably be over sooner with fewer blade contacts.

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]fearnloathingnyc wrote:
I’m looking for some insight from others as to the pros and cons of each stance and which one would be most beneficial for me specifically given my circumstances.

I have 6 months of boxing experience in a southpaw stance and will start working in law enforcement where I will wear my firearm on my right side (since I am right handed and right eye dominant). If I were to stick with a southpaw stance, my firearm is a lot more exposed in this stance than the orthodox position. This is a serious concern.

Here are some of my notes:

  • I am naturally right handed
  • Punch harder with my left hand
  • Move fluidly as a southpaw
  • I recently tried to switch to orthodox and my footwork, jab, and right cross just doesn’t feel comfortable. I am a lot slower and generate less punching power from the orthodox stance.
  • My technique is considerably better as a southpaw

Here are some reasons why I may want to train as an orthodox fighter

  • I kick A LOT harder with my right leg in an orthodox stance.
  • My firearm is on my right side. In a bladed orthodox stance, my firearm is less reachable than in the southpaw stance
  • I plan on training in Muay Thai and kicking harder in the orthodox position with my right leg seems like a good reason to switch to orthodox
  • I want to add in some Judo and I’ve read that most wrestlers train with their dominant hand in the front. When I grappled in the past, I did so as a southpaw and felt a lot more comfortable. Not sure if this matters much for Judo

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Happy Turkey Day![/quote]

Disclosure:

I’ve dabbled in MA, and I am no expert in that area by any means. I’m currently assigned to patrols and it’s really different training in the gym and being on the road.

Forget the kicks unless you’re in real trouble. It looks bad in court, and really bad on Youtube. LEOs aren’t really taught kicks, and the defense is going to pick you apart for deviating from what you were trained to do.

I would avoid punching with your gun hand as well. If you break it, it will be very hard to draw your weapon if you need to. Do a few drills drawing your gun from a Level III holster with your opposite hand. It can be done, but it’s far from ideal.

Keep your gun bladed away from bad guy. Enough said.

I wouldn’t add in grappling, I would focus on it. It will be much more useful to you. The only time you should be striking is if you need to create some distance. You have some tools on your belt, utilize them. If OC spray, a baton, or a taser don’t work out, punching him in the face probably won’t, either.

I wouldn’t worry about fluidity too much. I feel pretty fluid after I get warmed up on the bag, but I’m not so fluid working with 4 hours of sleep on the night shift after sitting in a car with all my gear on. Put all your equipment on and spar with some buddies to see what’s it’s like. You’ll see what is good, and what is not so good pretty quickly.

Having said all that, always remember that as an LEO you can’t lose a fight. Do what you have to do if it means going home. [/quote]

Good stuff. Just wanted to expand on a few things, for the sake of discussion. As always, I defer to the voice of experience. Most of the first hand observations below are from force on force reality based scenario training for LE fleshed out by discussions with trainers who have tons of road time.

Regarding punching, closed fist strikes of any kind delivered to hard surfaces are less desirable due to potential hand injuries. Other than the shovel hook to the ribs (which I am a fan of) virtually all hand strikes are better delivered with the palm. Punching a guy in the teeth bare handed may or may not result in a busted hand but it will almost certainly result in cut up knuckles which will very possibly result in fluid exchange, which is less desirable given the nature of some of the clientele LE works with on the road.

Knees and elbows are both much more resistant to superficial injuries (cuts etc) and more severe injuries (fractures) and therefore, IMO make better striking surfaces for LE than the hands in most cases. They also allow a smaller, weaker, less skilled officer to transfer more mass into the strike and thus deliver a heavier, more effective strike than most boxing based techniques will. Thus a larger, stronger more trained officer will get the subject under control that much more quickly/safely. Knees/elbows are also gross motor skill based and therefore won’t deteriorate too much under combat stress. Furthermore, they are effective inside bad breath range (i.e I’m trying to take this guy into custody and he’s resisting range) where most punches will be a bit smothered and most cops get into tussles. Controlling distance is difficult at best in real world violence, all the more so when the goal is to get close enough to establish control.

Regarding striking v. grappling, I absolutely agree that every cop should be a competent stand up grappler. I think that this may be more important than being a skilled striker, but I haven’t made up my mind just yet. However, my understanding and observation has been that, unless you grossly outclass someone in terms of size, strength and/or skill, trying to directly lock/throw/wrestle/control them without first delivering a strike or two to disrupt his attention is likely to result in a push,/pull merry-go-round situation. A well placed knee strike makes it much easier to lock in that standing arm bar. Most people feel less inclined to resist after a hard shot to the pelvic triangle. Twirling around trying to wrassle with and overpower determined, fully resisting opponent on uneven ground puts the officer at prolonged risk. Increasing fatigue as the engagement continues increases that risk.

Regarding other tools on your belt, as useful as they are and as good an idea as it is to be the first person to up the ante in a violent encounter, there is a risk of LEO becoming too tool dependent and not confident enough in their own personal weapons. During a spontaneous assault at close quarters, backpedalling scrambling for OC/baton/CEW or even a firearm is, in many cases not the most advantageous response, again IMO. At least one of your hands will be down at your waste, you are moving backwards, your fine motor skills are shot (fumble fingers), you are not attacking for critical seconds and above all you’ve lost the initiative.

This is especially true in close quarter edged weapon attacks. Sure, you’re 100% justified to shoot and it would be ideal, but if you don’t know you’re in a knife fight until you’re getting stabbed it might be a little late to start trying to pull your pistol and get off that shot. “Shove and shoot” is problematic at best IMO.

In many cases an immediate, aggressive counter-attack with whatever you have available (i.e. empty hand techniques) will yield better results than the old standard, create distance, deploy a better tool/weapon and re-engage. Modern military doctrine recognizes this. The “old” response to an ambush was to retreat to cover, regroup and counter attack. As I understand it, this has been updated in certain cases to immediately attack the attack and fight you way through the ambush with speed, surprise and violence of action. This allows you to reclaim the initiative and shifts the predator/prey dynamic in your favour.

Lastly, as always, having the awareness to see the potential threat and put yourself a such a position advantage that you shut it down of before it starts trumps any technique. Force presence, tactical positioning, superior numbers, tools/weapons etc are your best assets.

Sorry for text wall. Hopefully there’s something useful in there.

Edited, a lot. Apparently I can’t type today.[/quote]

Good discussion and good points by batman and WN76.

Regarding closed hand strikes, WN does make a good point about the danger of damaging the gun hand from striking. The truth is clenching the hands into fists is a natural stress reaction. This is why LEO’s are taught to keep their trigger finger off of the trigger unless they are pulling it/intend to pull it. When startled or placed under heavy amounts of stress the body will instinctively close the hands/clench the fists. So, while in theory open hand strikes are safer when thrown to potentially hard targets, if there is enough perceived danger or if the time frame of escalation is short enough it’s difficult to prevent people from making fists.

You also have to take into account the person using the techniques. I know people who have been in hundreds if not thousands of real fights and who have never broken their hands while punching, so clearly for them using fists didn’t prove hazardous to their hand function. I would however not advise a 120 lb female who has not spent her life conditioning her hands for fighting and has a relatively small and frail bone structure that they are going to have the same outcome. Again though, depending on the circumstances they may not be able to stop themselves.

So, in the end the best approach is to learn how to punch correctly (as doing so will at least minimize the rate/risk of injury) as well as learning how to throw open handed strikes (and using them when they are able to).

In regards to elbows (and/or forearm smashes) and knees, I agree that they make great short range striking tools. They don’t increase the amount of mass delivered to the target over punches or kicks though (not properly thrown punches and kicks anyhow), but instead simple increase one’s leverage and minimize the number of joints which need to be stabilized when striking. They are therefore simpler movements (more gross motor) for people to understand and learn/replicate. As far as potential forces though they aren’t necessarily more powerful as although their leverage is greater, they travel less distance (meaning less velocity/acceleration/momentum/inertia can be developed) prior to impact.

As for the grappling vs striking argument, let me first say that I think grappling (contact and control) skills make perfect sense for LEO’s that will need to subdue and (at least in theory) humanely apprehend a suspect. That said, I agree with batman that utilizing Atemi (strikes) makes grappling techniques easier to apply. Nerve attacks, eye attacks, and body handles also make grappling techniques easier to apply on resisting opponents. Also never underestimate utilizing your tools (baton for example) to apply grappling techniques (which make them very, very powerful).

Whether Judo would be the best choice, eh, I really like Judo for teaching you how to break balance and maintain your own balance. But, I actually feel that something like Small Circle Jiu-Jitsu, Ninjutsu/Taijutsu (lots of joint locking utilizing weapons/tools), Chin Na or some other art which specializes it manipulating and controlling using all of the joints would be more useful for a LEO. One of the lower ranks who trains under my instructor is currently enrolled at the local police academy and told me recently that her instructors informed her that the department no longer utilizes small joint manipulations but instead uses hip throws for practically every situation where they need to subdue someone in order to avoid injuring a suspect. Coming from someone who teaches Judo as part of their curriculum, this is about as back asswards as it gets. Not only do very few people know how to breakfall correctly to avoid being seriously injured from being thrown, but to think that a 120 lb female with a few months of training is going to be successful hip throwing a 200+ lb man is highly unrealistic and worse yet puts the LEO’s back to the suspect.

Not saying that you shouldn’t learn Judo, just that I don’t think it’s the most practical grappling art for LEO’s (of course predicated on what is available to you). Just my opinion though.

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Regarding CQ edged weapon stuff. First off, shit situation regardless. Any response that gets you home was the right one. Let me see if I can clarify a little. One of the members at our local PD was attacked out of nowhere by a guy with a blade. They were in a doorway and this dude decided, for whatever reason, that he should start stabbing her in the neck. Accessing her weapon, at that range while engaged with a guy who was trying to end her was just not practical. Both hands were tied up surviving. Disengaging was maybe practical but very difficult. She ended up getting him to ground and gaining control, hands cut to ratshit.

No way to tell, but IMO had she focused on getting to her gun instead of fighting the guy and removing his ability to stab her anymore, it might have turned out differently. Again, impossible to say. Like your example, she had a significant advantage over him in terms of physical ability and it was still a pretty bad scene. I believe Idaho (a mil/LEO poster) has a story about some scrawny little female who posed a fairly minimal threat unarmed but suddenly grabbed a knife from between the couch cushions and sliced is arm open pretty good. Fighting a knife wielding attacker, especially one of similar size/ability as yourself unarmed seems like an extremely bad strategy, to say the least.

It’s always a situational judgment call. If you can disengage and trade up your weapon system, absolutely do so, of course. However, I think it’s important to have a plan for when that’s not practical because sometimes it won’t be. In that case, aggressively attacking the attack, wrapping up and controlling the delivery system (arm/elbow, not hand/wrist) and continuing to attack (primarily with knees and or fixed inanimate objects) until you can ground the guy (or possibly create an opportunity to disengage and shoot) seems like not a bad play. Don’t get me wrong. I’m totally on board with shooting knife guy as a potential plan A and a better one where practical,

One of my old instructors set up a simulation based experiment with a number trained officers being attacked at extreme close quarters with training knives. Officers were not told ahead of time what was going to happen, simply to deal with the situation. The officers who got “cut/stabbed” the least were those who directly engaged with knees and elbows and brought the subject under control. Those who tried to disengage and shoot had a lot of difficulty and generally got contacted more times with the knife. It’s a small sample, but it’s food for thought…

Regarding “duty knives” they are obviously for cutting seatbelts, tape, rope if someone hangs themselves etc. They are definitely not at all for peeling someone the fuck off you when all else fails, but could be improvised for that purpose in emergency. Tacti-cool knives are better suited to all the above legitimate intended applications than non-tacti-cool variants for a variety of reasons.

A very small, inconspicuous fixed blade (i.e. Ka-Bar TDI law enforcement) that can be accessed with either hand has value as a backup when one hand or the other may be tied up (i.e. holding up the above mentioned hanging victim) and accessing/opening a clip-it folder might be problematic.[/quote]

Good stuff man. I see where you’re coming from, and I agree wholeheartedly.

I saw a video of a very similar scenario that your instructor set up. Cops were instructed to interact with a subject in a room who appeared to be unarmed. Well, the subject just happened to be Dan Insanto(IIRC). It was very eye opening. Being strapped isn’t all it’s made out to be. I’ll try to dig up the video…
[/quote]

Thanks for digging that up. It actually illustrates what I’m getting at pretty well. Only one of those officers looked like he did an effective of backpedalling to maintain distance so he could re-engage with his firearm. Generally bad guy’s fast forward is probably much faster than your fast backward, especially given the action/reaction gap. In training I like to tell people that I could beat Usain Bolt in the 100m… if I could run forward, he had to run backward and only I knew that we were gonna have a race and when it was gonna start.

Imagine how those scenarios might have turned out differently if right off the hop those officers crashed forward violently into the attack and started feeding knees/elbows etc (not critiquing anybody, those guys were set up to fail). Whether they were able trap the knife arm or not the attack would probably be over sooner with fewer blade contacts.

[/quote]

Absolutely. Also, even if you are able to disengage and access your firearm unless you actually hit the brain with your shot your attacker can continue stabbing away at you. It’s not like in the movies where any lethal shot will immediately disable your assailant.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
One of the lower ranks who trains under my instructor is currently enrolled at the local police academy and told me recently that her instructors informed her that the department no longer utilizes small joint manipulations but instead uses hip throws for practically every situation where they need to subdue someone in order to avoid injuring a suspect. Coming from someone who teaches Judo as part of their curriculum, this is about as back asswards as it gets. Not only do very few people know how to breakfall correctly to avoid being seriously injured from being thrown, but to think that a 120 lb female with a few months of training is going to be successful hip throwing a 200+ lb man is highly unrealistic and worse yet puts the LEO’s back to the suspect.
[/quote]

My eyebrow went up as I was reading this. That is back asswards indeed. I can’t imagine sliding my hip in with all the shit I have to carry on my belt. It would also put my gun well within reach of the subject.

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
One of the lower ranks who trains under my instructor is currently enrolled at the local police academy and told me recently that her instructors informed her that the department no longer utilizes small joint manipulations but instead uses hip throws for practically every situation where they need to subdue someone in order to avoid injuring a suspect. Coming from someone who teaches Judo as part of their curriculum, this is about as back asswards as it gets. Not only do very few people know how to breakfall correctly to avoid being seriously injured from being thrown, but to think that a 120 lb female with a few months of training is going to be successful hip throwing a 200+ lb man is highly unrealistic and worse yet puts the LEO’s back to the suspect.
[/quote]

My eyebrow went up as I was reading this. That is back asswards indeed. I can’t imagine sliding my hip in with all the shit I have to carry on my belt. It would also put my gun well within reach of the subject. [/quote]

Yup.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]fearnloathingnyc wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]fearnloathingnyc wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I’ve trained with very highly respected and experienced RMA coaches/LEO instructors who say to go strong side forward and ones that say go weak side forward. In the end you simply need to make your decision and then work the hell out of your skills from that position; also realize that it’s always a good idea to be able to function from both stances as well as a neutral stance, seated, laying on the ground, sitting in your car, etc…as you could potentially start a confrontation in any position.

Here are some of the pros and cons that I can think of off the top of my head; hopefully some of the experienced LEO’s that post on this forum will chime in with more:

Orthodox (assuming right handed) pros-
-firearm is less easily accessible to being taken from you (assuming you can face opponent)
-generally you want a weapon in the rear hand if engaging someone who is unarmed (for same reason as above)
-you will likely learn to shoot from either an Isosceles stance (squared stance), or Weaver stance (with weak side leg forward), so if you practice fighting unarmed with a southpaw stance, you will have to switch to an orthodox or squared stance if you want to use your firearm, which is going to require extra time and/or distance which you may not have

Cons-
-weaker lead hand strike and lead leg strike, which also means in general you will have less neuromuscular coordination/speed/accuracy when/if utilizing other tools such as a night stick with the lead arm, or less range with the weapon if using it with your rear hand (bad for weapon on weapon scenarios)

Southpaw pros-
-strongest more neuromuscularly skilled hand (or weapon utilized) and leg will be closer to opponent meaning quicker delivery of attacks with lead side

Cons-
-again, you will need to switch from your regular stance to effectively fire your firearm
-easier access to weapon by unarmed assailant

Hope this helps, good luck.
[/quote]

Thanks a ton Sentoguy. This is very very helpful and a solid breakdown of the pros and cons. Awesome job man. The strongest and only con against the southpaw stance is that an unarmed assailant has easier access to the weapon (which you mentioned). If it weren’t for this reason, the choice would be easy.

The LEO instructors who you have trained with who recommend strong side forward, what are their thoughts on having the firearm on the front side? In other words, what they did say and believe in to help mitigate the serious concerns involved with having the firearm on the front side?

Thanks again for your very helpful post.[/quote]

No problem.

Their argument had to do primarily with being able to utilize the front hand as a more effective weapon (for striking) and that at a close range your first reaction are going to need to be unarmed anyway since there will be insufficient time to draw and utilize the weapon. It’s only after you’ve utilized empty hands stuff that you’ll be able to step back and access the weapon. In other words, generally a hard punch,elbow, shield, etc…to the bio computer/brain will interrupt/stop a person’s fixation on accessing your weapon/tool and give you the time/distance to access it yourself.

That said, they also teach a “gun shield” with the gun held in the rear (strong side back) for close quarters shooting.

So again, realistically you need to be competent from either stance, squared, or any other position that you regularly find yourself in. Also realize that while the balance and basic structural stance mechanics that boxing teaches and striking speed, power, timing, judgement, and accuracy that boxing teaches are extremely useful for an LEO, you really aren’t going to be dancing around like in a boxing match (or if you are, something went very wrong), so you only really need basic footwork for the most part.

I’m not suggesting that you don’t continue to practice and refine your boxing skills, in fact I’d highly recommend you continue to develop them. Just realize that as a LEO, you don’t want to ever wind up in a sparring match/boxing match against an assailant.

[/quote]

Thanks. I like their argument and it makes a lot of sense especially in my case. I agree with you that I should be prepared to utilize both stances because the unpredictability of law enforcement work could have me starting off in either an orthodox, squared, or southpaw stance. There are so many variables at work here.

As for boxing, although I really enjoy it, I do know the inherent limitations specifically in law enforcement where I am more likely to grapple with a perpetrator. I am going to transition over to Judo and Muay Thai training.

If you don’t mind me asking, do you know of some competent and highly respected training agencies who specialize in firearms tactics within the northeast? I am looking to supplement my department training with outside training.

Thanks a again for your very helpful comments.[/quote]

Where are you located in the Northeast? I know of some very knowledgeable instructors, but unsure of agencies.[/quote]

State of New York. If you can recommend some good instructors in New York, that would be awesome!

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
One of the lower ranks who trains under my instructor is currently enrolled at the local police academy and told me recently that her instructors informed her that the department no longer utilizes small joint manipulations but instead uses hip throws for practically every situation where they need to subdue someone in order to avoid injuring a suspect. Coming from someone who teaches Judo as part of their curriculum, this is about as back asswards as it gets. Not only do very few people know how to breakfall correctly to avoid being seriously injured from being thrown, but to think that a 120 lb female with a few months of training is going to be successful hip throwing a 200+ lb man is highly unrealistic and worse yet puts the LEO’s back to the suspect.
[/quote]

My eyebrow went up as I was reading this. That is back asswards indeed. I can’t imagine sliding my hip in with all the shit I have to carry on my belt. It would also put my gun well within reach of the subject. [/quote]

Yup.[/quote]

That’s messed up. Ignoring the totally valid practicality/weapon retention issues, let’s say you could train a 120lb female officer in full duty kit to effectively hip throw a 200lb+, fully resisting male attacker in a few months, the idea that the hip throw is “safer” for the subject is ridiculous.

Slamming an untrained, possibly intoxicated subject into sidewalks/stairs/curbs etc is safer than applying a wrist/finger lock? Really. Tell you what, I’ll take a tweaked finger over a cracked skull any day. One of the trainers at our local PD says something to the effect of nothing hits harder than the ground.

For myself, I tend to look at hard throws/slams onto concrete as being getting up there into the lethal force range of the continuum while I look at small joint stuff (properly applied) as more physical control “soft”.

Love the stuff the big brains dream up sometimes…

This has been an interesting dialogue. I’m a retired cop who served at local and federal levels. I hunted fugitives for years and did a lot of door kicking and fighting. Different states interpret the force continuum differently. I think Dan Inosanto’s video was the best contribution to the question of stance. While stance and gun retention is certainly important, there are some things that cannot be achieved by stance alone. On the west coast we contend a great deal with knife cultures. An ideal fighting stance provides targets to those skilled in arnis, kali, escrima, and in particular those who practice espada y daga, (short blade and dagger).

If I had to do it over again I would have added a second asp baton to my equipment and practiced sinawali and other escrima drills. The martial arts of the Philipines have the perfect approaches and equipment to occupy the mid range between combat force and lethal force. The stick and blade drills improve the reflexes to the point where ordinary hand speeds are easier to confront. The defensive possibilities for someone trained and equipment with a two asp attack are significant. And the sight of that second asp would no doubt provide a substantial deterrent to a skilled attacker. And a skilled practitioner, even a 120 lb female, can do a great deal of damage to an aggressor.

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
One of the lower ranks who trains under my instructor is currently enrolled at the local police academy and told me recently that her instructors informed her that the department no longer utilizes small joint manipulations but instead uses hip throws for practically every situation where they need to subdue someone in order to avoid injuring a suspect. Coming from someone who teaches Judo as part of their curriculum, this is about as back asswards as it gets. Not only do very few people know how to breakfall correctly to avoid being seriously injured from being thrown, but to think that a 120 lb female with a few months of training is going to be successful hip throwing a 200+ lb man is highly unrealistic and worse yet puts the LEO’s back to the suspect.
[/quote]

My eyebrow went up as I was reading this. That is back asswards indeed. I can’t imagine sliding my hip in with all the shit I have to carry on my belt. It would also put my gun well within reach of the subject. [/quote]

Yup.[/quote]

That’s messed up. Ignoring the totally valid practicality/weapon retention issues, let’s say you could train a 120lb female officer in full duty kit to effectively hip throw a 200lb+, fully resisting male attacker in a few months, the idea that the hip throw is “safer” for the subject is ridiculous.

Slamming an untrained, possibly intoxicated subject into sidewalks/stairs/curbs etc is safer than applying a wrist/finger lock? Really. Tell you what, I’ll take a tweaked finger over a cracked skull any day. One of the trainers at our local PD says something to the effect of nothing hits harder than the ground.

For myself, I tend to look at hard throws/slams onto concrete as being getting up there into the lethal force range of the continuum while I look at small joint stuff (properly applied) as more physical control “soft”.

Love the stuff the big brains dream up sometimes…[/quote]

Exactly my response. When I asked her why they weren’t allowed to use small digit stuff she said the answer she was given was “because most people don’t know how to go with small digit stuff, so too many suspects were getting hurt”, to which I of course responded, “right…because most people know how to breakfall from being hip thrown (obvious sarcasm).”

[quote]t dar wrote:
This has been an interesting dialogue. I’m a retired cop who served at local and federal levels. I hunted fugitives for years and did a lot of door kicking and fighting. Different states interpret the force continuum differently. I think Dan Inosanto’s video was the best contribution to the question of stance. While stance and gun retention is certainly important, there are some things that cannot be achieved by stance alone. On the west coast we contend a great deal with knife cultures. An ideal fighting stance provides targets to those skilled in arnis, kali, escrima, and in particular those who practice espada y daga, (short blade and dagger).

If I had to do it over again I would have added a second asp baton to my equipment and practiced sinawali and other escrima drills. The martial arts of the Philipines have the perfect approaches and equipment to occupy the mid range between combat force and lethal force. The stick and blade drills improve the reflexes to the point where ordinary hand speeds are easier to confront. The defensive possibilities for someone trained and equipment with a two asp attack are significant. And the sight of that second asp would no doubt provide a substantial deterrent to a skilled attacker. And a skilled practitioner, even a 120 lb female, can do a great deal of damage to an aggressor.[/quote]

Impact weapons like batons are great force multipliers, but you still have to be able to access them to utilize them effectively. In several of those scenarios with Inosanto the officer was way too close to be able to deploy two batons before you were leaking from many many new holes in your body. Had the officer had the batons drawn and maintained a greater distance, then sure, that would have worked great.

But, if we’re going to go " what ifs", then had the officer drawn their weapon, stood right by the door (so they could quickly go back through it and possibly used it as an encumbrance (to prevent the attacker from getting to them or at least slowed their pursuit down enough to where they, the officer, would have a better chance of a lethal shot) and then ordered the suspect to take out their wallet and slide it over and then lay down on the floor face down, facing away with their hands behind their head and cross their feet behind them as well before the officer bent down to check the ID, and then and only then decided to approach the suspect to apprehend them, then the pistol would have been fine against the knife. But realistically that is quite a severe reaction to a suspect that has shown no signs of aggression or “danger”, and I as a civilian have the luxury of simply leaving the situation if my gut tells me something is up and of never underestimating anyone. I don’t have to worry about departmental procedures.

In regards to knife stuff, IMO Rich Ryan’s knife stuff is better than the Kali/Escrima stuff for real world application, and I have trained with some outstanding Fillipino guys (my primary instructor also feels the same way and he’s an Arnis instructor under Remy Presas). I’d definitely check out his stuff if you get a chance to.

My base training was in AikiJutsu. The maintenance of Ma Ai, or acceptable distance was the first and most consistently exercised concept. Without proper distance, and preparation to confront anyone closing the distance, all is lost. Still, I didn’t find many ways to apply it on the street. Tacoma PD made a training film in the 80’s demonstrating that someone with a knife within 25 feet was still able to close with and effectively attack against a stationary officer armed with a gun.

While filming, the demo suspect accidentally started his attack from 35 feet and was still able to stab and slash before an effective response. I agree that drawing and extending two batons can be slow, but drawing one and making a strike toward the attackers face which preparing the other is very possible. Kendo stylists practice a form called Iaido, their version of the quick draw. I’ve always contended that LEO’s should apply this kind of thinking to all lethal and non lethal applications of force.

I’ll certainly take a look at Rich Ryan’s knife stuff. Even though I always carried a knife and practiced knife fighting, the agencies I worked for would never have permitted it as anything but a weapon of last resort. But if you’re saying that Rich Ryan, like the Kali/Escrima stuff, has hand-to-hand applications then I’m sure it’s worth seeing.

[quote]t dar wrote:
My base training was in AikiJutsu. The maintenance of Ma Ai, or acceptable distance was the first and most consistently exercised concept. Without proper distance, and preparation to confront anyone closing the distance, all is lost. Still, I didn’t find many ways to apply it on the street. Tacoma PD made a training film in the 80’s demonstrating that someone with a knife within 25 feet was still able to close with and effectively attack against a stationary officer armed with a gun.

While filming, the demo suspect accidentally started his attack from 35 feet and was still able to stab and slash before an effective response. I agree that drawing and extending two batons can be slow, but drawing one and making a strike toward the attackers face which preparing the other is very possible. Kendo stylists practice a form called Iaido, their version of the quick draw. I’ve always contended that LEO’s should apply this kind of thinking to all lethal and non lethal applications of force.

I’ll certainly take a look at Rich Ryan’s knife stuff. Even though I always carried a knife and practiced knife fighting, the agencies I worked for would never have permitted it as anything but a weapon of last resort. But if you’re saying that Rich Ryan, like the Kali/Escrima stuff, has hand-to-hand applications then I’m sure it’s worth seeing.[/quote]

Yeah, controlling distance is one of the most important strategies/concepts in combat, like you said though it’s not always possible to keep things at a long distance, especially if you have to apprehend someone physically. That is why I’m a big proponent of learning how to fight at all 7 ranges of Combat.

That point about the 25 foot rule is an important one. Rich Ryan ran a bunch of simmunitions tests with this at Gunsite in AZ (where Rich was the head unarmed instructor and one of the firearms tactics instructors as well) a bunch of years back and what they found was that the only time that the knife wielding attacker didn’t make it to the gun wielding defender/LEO was when:

  1. the person with the gun was highly trained
  2. the person with the gun could back up
  3. the person with the gun could reload and continue firing
  4. the person with the gun started with the gun drawn, saftey off, and pointed at center mass

If any of the above criteria were not present, then the knife wielding attacker made it to the gun wielding defender pretty much every time (obviously there is the possibility of just landing a lucky kill shot to the brain, but it was statistically so low that it never occurred during their testing).

And yes, definitely check out Rich’s stuff on empty hands, empty hands vs knife, impact weapons and pretty much anything else you can find. It is all scientifically backed (no “stylistic” bias), pressure tested and proven effective (no purely “theoretical” skill sets or strategies), much of it is based on gross motor, easy to learn, and easy to reproduce.

[quote]fearnloathingnyc wrote:
I’m looking for some insight from others as to the pros and cons of each stance and which one would be most beneficial for me specifically given my circumstances.

I have 6 months of boxing experience in a southpaw stance and will start working in law enforcement where I will wear my firearm on my right side (since I am right handed and right eye dominant). If I were to stick with a southpaw stance, my firearm is a lot more exposed in this stance than the orthodox position. This is a serious concern.

Here are some of my notes:

  • I am naturally right handed
  • Punch harder with my left hand
  • Move fluidly as a southpaw
  • I recently tried to switch to orthodox and my footwork, jab, and right cross just doesn’t feel comfortable. I am a lot slower and generate less punching power from the orthodox stance.
  • My technique is considerably better as a southpaw

Here are some reasons why I may want to train as an orthodox fighter

  • I kick A LOT harder with my right leg in an orthodox stance.
  • My firearm is on my right side. In a bladed orthodox stance, my firearm is less reachable than in the southpaw stance
  • I plan on training in Muay Thai and kicking harder in the orthodox position with my right leg seems like a good reason to switch to orthodox
  • I want to add in some Judo and I’ve read that most wrestlers train with their dominant hand in the front. When I grappled in the past, I did so as a southpaw and felt a lot more comfortable. Not sure if this matters much for Judo

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Happy Turkey Day![/quote]

my thoughts…

if all i had to do was fight (MMA, whatever), i’d fight strong hand forward. however, since i have to worry about weapons retention, i’m trained to keep the weak hand forward to protect the sidearm. if a cop get’s KO’d, they’ve got like a 90% chance of being shot with their own gun…

i’m a great kicker. i can “speed break,” kick 280lbs heavy bags off their bases, etc etc… and i have never, ever kicked anyone in a fight. maybe being from Iowa the risk of being taken down is high, but again, as a cop, you don’t wanna be on your back.

IMO, judo should be the base for LE DT training… i’ve hip tossed quite a few people, and with my 270 lb ass landing on top of them on concrete tends to take the fight out pretty quick.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Regarding CQ edged weapon stuff. First off, shit situation regardless. Any response that gets you home was the right one. Let me see if I can clarify a little. One of the members at our local PD was attacked out of nowhere by a guy with a blade. They were in a doorway and this dude decided, for whatever reason, that he should start stabbing her in the neck. Accessing her weapon, at that range while engaged with a guy who was trying to end her was just not practical. Both hands were tied up surviving. Disengaging was maybe practical but very difficult. She ended up getting him to ground and gaining control, hands cut to ratshit.

No way to tell, but IMO had she focused on getting to her gun instead of fighting the guy and removing his ability to stab her anymore, it might have turned out differently. Again, impossible to say. Like your example, she had a significant advantage over him in terms of physical ability and it was still a pretty bad scene. I believe Idaho (a mil/LEO poster) has a story about some scrawny little female who posed a fairly minimal threat unarmed but suddenly grabbed a knife from between the couch cushions and sliced is arm open pretty good. Fighting a knife wielding attacker, especially one of similar size/ability as yourself unarmed seems like an extremely bad strategy, to say the least.

It’s always a situational judgment call. If you can disengage and trade up your weapon system, absolutely do so, of course. However, I think it’s important to have a plan for when that’s not practical because sometimes it won’t be. In that case, aggressively attacking the attack, wrapping up and controlling the delivery system (arm/elbow, not hand/wrist) and continuing to attack (primarily with knees and or fixed inanimate objects) until you can ground the guy (or possibly create an opportunity to disengage and shoot) seems like not a bad play. Don’t get me wrong. I’m totally on board with shooting knife guy as a potential plan A and a better one where practical,

One of my old instructors set up a simulation based experiment with a number trained officers being attacked at extreme close quarters with training knives. Officers were not told ahead of time what was going to happen, simply to deal with the situation. The officers who got “cut/stabbed” the least were those who directly engaged with knees and elbows and brought the subject under control. Those who tried to disengage and shoot had a lot of difficulty and generally got contacted more times with the knife. It’s a small sample, but it’s food for thought…

Regarding “duty knives” they are obviously for cutting seatbelts, tape, rope if someone hangs themselves etc. They are definitely not at all for peeling someone the fuck off you when all else fails, but could be improvised for that purpose in emergency. Tacti-cool knives are better suited to all the above legitimate intended applications than non-tacti-cool variants for a variety of reasons.

A very small, inconspicuous fixed blade (i.e. Ka-Bar TDI law enforcement) that can be accessed with either hand has value as a backup when one hand or the other may be tied up (i.e. holding up the above mentioned hanging victim) and accessing/opening a clip-it folder might be problematic.[/quote]

Good stuff man. I see where you’re coming from, and I agree wholeheartedly.

I saw a video of a very similar scenario that your instructor set up. Cops were instructed to interact with a subject in a room who appeared to be unarmed. Well, the subject just happened to be Dan Insanto(IIRC). It was very eye opening. Being strapped isn’t all it’s made out to be. I’ll try to dig up the video…
[/quote]

Thanks for digging that up. It actually illustrates what I’m getting at pretty well. Only one of those officers looked like he did an effective of backpedalling to maintain distance so he could re-engage with his firearm. Generally bad guy’s fast forward is probably much faster than your fast backward, especially given the action/reaction gap. In training I like to tell people that I could beat Usain Bolt in the 100m… if I could run forward, he had to run backward and only I knew that we were gonna have a race and when it was gonna start.

Imagine how those scenarios might have turned out differently if right off the hop those officers crashed forward violently into the attack and started feeding knees/elbows etc (not critiquing anybody, those guys were set up to fail). Whether they were able trap the knife arm or not the attack would probably be over sooner with fewer blade contacts.

[/quote]

Absolutely. Also, even if you are able to disengage and access your firearm unless you actually hit the brain with your shot your attacker can continue stabbing away at you. It’s not like in the movies where any lethal shot will immediately disable your assailant.[/quote]

good point.

if you can’t get a CNS shot, then you need to destroy the skeletal structure and cause massive blood loss… and this takes several minutes, at least…

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
generally you want a weapon in the rear hand if engaging someone who is unarmed (for same reason as above)
-you will likely learn to shoot from either an Isosceles stance (squared stance), or Weaver stance (with weak side leg forward), so if you practice fighting unarmed with a southpaw stance, you will have to switch to an orthodox or squared stance if you want to use your firearm, which is going to require extra time and/or distance which you may not have

[/quote]


This was definitely an initial problem for me. Holding the gun in my left hand is quite impossible, but standing with my weak (left) leg forward while shooting “righty” also felt strange, since I do everything athletic - from swinging a bat to playing golf - from a southpaw stance.

As a result, I’ve adopted much more of a squared-off stance. Although it’s not as comfortable as having my left leg back, it’s doable.

That being said, the friend that I’ve learned to shoot from - who is a cop and veteran of multiple branches of the service - uses a pretty squared-off stance, and he is very accurate.[/quote]

Isoceles (squared) shooting seems to be gaining popularity right now, both for pistol and (perhaps more surprisingly) long gun.

Part of the reason, as I’ve heard it explained, is that the vast majority of shooters will default to a square stance when shooting at close range, dynamically and under stress (as in during a gunfight). This includes Weaver trained shooters. It’s involuntary, not unlike how trained boxers will often end up squaring up toe to toe and just hammering away when it’s for real. Training has a way of going out the window in a hurry when the lizard brain’s in charge.

So, if that’s what you’ll almost certainly do when it counts and you don’t have 100’s of hours to devote to training that response out, why not train to shoot that way? I agree that it feels awkward as ass at first (especially with a rifle/carbine), but it gets easier.

The other argument, I believe has, to do with your ability to brace against the recoil to stay on target for quick follow up shots. The thinking goes that you are more able to do this if the weapon is pushing straight back into your centre of mass as opposed to on a diagonal across your body, or at least that’s how I’ve understood the firearms guys who’ve tried to explain it to me. Any of the guys with more in depth firearms backgrounds, feel free to set me straight, of course.[/quote]

i think this has to do with LE and military folks moving away from the “modified isosceles” because they’re ignoring the inherent advantages/disadvantages of their body armor…

[quote]cycobushmaster wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
generally you want a weapon in the rear hand if engaging someone who is unarmed (for same reason as above)
-you will likely learn to shoot from either an Isosceles stance (squared stance), or Weaver stance (with weak side leg forward), so if you practice fighting unarmed with a southpaw stance, you will have to switch to an orthodox or squared stance if you want to use your firearm, which is going to require extra time and/or distance which you may not have

[/quote]


This was definitely an initial problem for me. Holding the gun in my left hand is quite impossible, but standing with my weak (left) leg forward while shooting “righty” also felt strange, since I do everything athletic - from swinging a bat to playing golf - from a southpaw stance.

As a result, I’ve adopted much more of a squared-off stance. Although it’s not as comfortable as having my left leg back, it’s doable.

That being said, the friend that I’ve learned to shoot from - who is a cop and veteran of multiple branches of the service - uses a pretty squared-off stance, and he is very accurate.[/quote]

Isoceles (squared) shooting seems to be gaining popularity right now, both for pistol and (perhaps more surprisingly) long gun.

Part of the reason, as I’ve heard it explained, is that the vast majority of shooters will default to a square stance when shooting at close range, dynamically and under stress (as in during a gunfight). This includes Weaver trained shooters. It’s involuntary, not unlike how trained boxers will often end up squaring up toe to toe and just hammering away when it’s for real. Training has a way of going out the window in a hurry when the lizard brain’s in charge.

So, if that’s what you’ll almost certainly do when it counts and you don’t have 100’s of hours to devote to training that response out, why not train to shoot that way? I agree that it feels awkward as ass at first (especially with a rifle/carbine), but it gets easier.

The other argument, I believe has, to do with your ability to brace against the recoil to stay on target for quick follow up shots. The thinking goes that you are more able to do this if the weapon is pushing straight back into your centre of mass as opposed to on a diagonal across your body, or at least that’s how I’ve understood the firearms guys who’ve tried to explain it to me. Any of the guys with more in depth firearms backgrounds, feel free to set me straight, of course.[/quote]

i think this has to do with LE and military folks moving away from the “modified isosceles” because they’re ignoring the inherent advantages/disadvantages of their body armor… [/quote]

Yeah, if you’re wearing a ballistic plate I guess you may as well point it at whomever is most likely to be shooting at you.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
My initial reaction is to say to fight how you’re most comfortable.

I am also a predominantly right-handed person, but I’ve always fought southpaw. The footwork is more natural for me (I literally can barely move in an orthodox position) and this gives me the benefit of not only having a good left hand, but also a strong jab and right hook. My right hook, actually, is my Sunday punch, which is unusual for lefty. I can also punch with my right hand , I’ve recently found, and my straight right hand and hook out of the orthodox stance is fairly strong, which allows me to change up a little while sparring and working the bags. But I still have NO movement, and if I want to go somewhere, I have to switch stances or back out and reset.

Now, I only box, and I don’t know shit about Muay Thai, but I remember back in my karate days being struck with a similar dilemma - I couldn’t kick for shit with my left leg, but couldn’t really do much of anything BESIDES kick while in the orthodox stance. So basically I hated kicking, sucked at it, and switched to boxing because fuck karate.

So if you want to kick, and are going to depend on kicking, then switch to orthodox. If fighting with your fists is more your style and you can make it work, continue fighting southpaw.

But whatever you do, don’t let your ideas of what you’ll be doing on duty affect that choice. If you’re “boxing” or “fighting” with criminals you’re supposed to be arresting, you’ve made some seriously bad choices leading up to that moment.

You’re supposed to arrest them. Detain them until backup comes. Pin them down so you can handcuff them. You’re not supposed to have your gun in your holster, while your fists are up, challenging some crackhead to a mano-y-mano bout on Jerome Avenue at 4 a.m.

And I suspect that while being a cop, you’re going to find yourself getting into altercations in some pretty strange ass places - small rooms, stairwells, maybe in the backseat of a car - where what hand you’re leading with is going to be the least of your worries.

Moral of the story is you must separate your sport fighting pursuits from your ideas of what street violence is and how you’ll handle it. They’re not mutually exclusive… especially in this world where laying a criminal down with a hook or a roundhouse is more likely to get you locked up for brutality than anything else.

[/quote]

excellent points by Irish here!