What combative would you reconmend?

[szorn]

I appreciate you educating me on the basis of the creation of SCARS. Which lead to the creation of TFT and SAFTA, and it appears that you've taken an interested look into the system(s) to form your opinion. Which I respect.

Acouple of things that I don't get though from your post is that you say the systems contain to many techniques. TFT is principled base and is about exploiting options for your benefit and has no enphasis on learning techniques. Just creating your own. I don't quite know what you mean about the incorporation of too many unatural skills for self defense.(But I would like to be educated) Also concerning Hicks Law I found a website http://www.hockscqc.com/articles/hickslaw.htm that talks about how not all things can be based on this law.

If you don't mind. I would like to PM you to ask you some more questions as I am interested in getting more of your opinion on this subject. I don't want to hijack this forum thread for my own personal benefit.

You guys have a great day

OK, after our discussion I decided to check out the TFT videos again to make sure I hadn't missed anything the first time around. I watched the 6 DVD set that covered the NY seminar which included a short handbook that came with the set.

The material on these DVDs is exactly the same material offered by SCARS and San Soo. Tim talks about autokinematics which is not a science by any means. He demonstrates traditional strikes, stances, kicks, and combination techniques taken directly from San Soo. He even includes the traditional flamboyant windmill techniques and stances common to San Soo. I was really surprised to see him demo the "stance form" which is taught to beginners in San Soo and includes unnatural and dangerous stances such as cross-steps. He then demos tarditional self-defense techniques against front chokes and wrist grabs. He emphasizes punching way too much for a system that is supposed to be based on combatives. Punching is a learned skill that takes quite a bit of time to master for combat applications and isn't a good technique to teach to beginners or to soldiers who may be engaging enemy soldiers wearing heavy duty gear. To take it even further he emphasized traditional middle-knuckle fists which are difficult to use under stress with much accuracy. As the name of his system implies he tends to focus on targets rather than actual combative concepts. In all he teaches over 70 targets, most of which are not that effective for real self-defense. He also teaches too many striking techniques and too many kicks for real combat. All of this violates the basic understanding of Hick's Law. Also, the majority of the techniques shown were contradictory to each other. In other words what he did against a punch attack was different than what he did for a grabbing attack and these techniques were even more different that what he did for ground attacks. The key for effective self-defense and combatives is to find universal techniques / tactics that easily transfer to numerous types of attacks whether standing or on the ground. In other words my physical responses should essentially be the same regardless of the type of attack. This not only makes the material easier to learn and retain but it improves the chances of using the skills effectively under the stress of a real assault because it bypasses cognitive thought processing.

A truly effective self-defense system will be easily applicable to men, women, teens, and senior citizens. To be honest, while TFT might work well for generally athletic males I don't believe it will work as effectively for women, teens, and especially for senior citizens. This is just a basic observation of the skills necessary to master the system. Does this make TFT a bad system? Absolutley not! But it's not a system I would recommend for those who need self-defense the most.

Steve Zorn, ICPS