This is one of those cases where the statement is both true and false. Pre-emptive strikes are sometimes needed and can be very effective. At the same time, I think the argument stems from a misunderstanding of the phases of training. Training should follow a specific phased development plan. In the initial training paradigm, everything is broken down into simple steps with minimal movement; thus everything is very static. No one is trying to make you miss or offering any real resistance.

As skill progresses, training often become much more dynamic. A little more resistance is introduced and the student is focused on how to overcome the resistance via proper technique. As skills progress, so does the resistance. Training begins to migrate from static to dynamic. Ultimately the practitioner must be able to perform the movement with full resistance and at full speed against a moving threat. To introduce the training that way on Day One, would be foolish and lead to utter frustration in the practitioner.

At DSI, we have been told we talk too much, should shut up and just show the move. The problem is that what we teach is super nuanced. There remains much that can not be easily discerned with the naked eye, especially at speed. It needs to be explained so you know the intricate adjustments that are necessary to perform the technique properly and that takes time and explanation. For us to go faster too soon would lead to missing 99% of what must be learned.

How do we know that what we do works? Because we have tested it both in the classroom, on the streets and other environments and it certainly wasn’t at slow speed. Many of our instructors and associates have professional experience in Law Enforcement, military, private security, and so on. We know it works because we have had to use it! We routinely hear from those involved they had no idea what we did because they couldn’t really tell what happened at speed. See why we slow things down when we teach?

Think back to when you learned to play a sport such as baseball. When you were first starting, did your coach do everything he could to strike you out the first time you picked up a baseball bat? Of course not! Then, why do critics think that instruction that is meant for beginners is unrealistic because it is too slow. The answer is likely they don’t understand the difference between entertainment and education. Watching it full speed is definitely more entertaining but offers little instructional value to the newbie. Training must progress in small incremental steps and work up to full speed. Such is the dilemma of living in the Internet age where people equate watching a video with learning to fight.

Another issue is that speed kills and breaks things. Imagine practicing a technique that breaks an arm (or neck) and doing at speed. How much control do you have? What is the margin of risk? It is totally impractical and an unacceptable risk. You simply can’t do it safely at speed! Doing it slow, even, is risky must lest thinking about doing it fast. Many of the joint locking techniques are trained slowly to minimize risk of damaging your partner. Strikes to the throat have the same risk as well of course. Sometimes slow is the only option anyway unless it is for real.

Hope that makes some sense and hopefully clears up some confusion. Keep in mind that the content we post is for training (read educational) purposes and not for amusement (read entertainment). We are a training company and not an entertainment studio.