TFT Tim Larkin Newsletter- destruction the prime motivator?

No affiliation to TFT or any real idea of what they teach but thought this newsletter from them was interesting

Quote :

ombat Training Principles -- Secrets For Staying Alive
When 'Rules' Don't Apply


"What Is The Ultimate Motivation In A Life-Or-Death Fight?"

******************************************************

"We must be eager to kill, to inflict on the enemy --
the hated enemy -- wounds, death, and destruction. If
we die killing, well and good, but if we fight hard
enough, viciously enough, we will kill and live. Live
to return home to our family and our girl as
conquering heroes -- men of Mars"

-- General George Patton

******************************************************

By this time you probably detect a theme in my
newsletters about the focus you need when faced by a
real life-or-death confrontation.

It's simply this: when faced with a life-or-death
violent confrontation where using violence is your
only option:

1. Don't hesitate.
2. Find your target and strike your target.
3. Keep striking targets until you have destroyed
the other guy.

Many clients come to me from other 'self-defense'
training where they are forced to deal with simulated
attacks. I'll pass on the quality of that training
approach and instead focus on the 'motivation' these
systems use to keep the client from freezing under
attack.

These 'motivators' revolve around fighting for your
life, fighting to go home to loved ones, fighting to
protect loved ones, or some variation of those themes.

But if you take a good look at those reasons they all
fall short for one critical reason: They are NOT what
truly gets the job done to focus yourself like a laser
in order to destroy the other guy. At best, they are
byproducts of the "ultimate motivation".

So what IS the ultimate motivation in a life-and-
death struggle?

-----------------------------------------------

AN ABSOLUTE FOCUS ON INFLICTIING AS MUCH DAMAGE
AS POSSIBLE TO THE OTHER GUY!

-----------------------------------------------

Pretty simple.

What allows you to go home to your loved ones, to
protect them or yourself during a violent attack is --
hurting the other guy.

Imagine this scenario: A mugger puts a knife to your
throat.

Now, two totally different responses...

The person motivated to 'protect' himself/herself
grabs the wrist and tries to wrest control of the
knife.

The person motivated to hurt his/her other guy shifts
their torso, penetrates forward and delivers a closed
fist punch to the other guy's Adam's apple.

Two totally different responses, with totally
different results...

The former runs the risk of losing control of the
knife and getting seriously injured or killed.

The latter, by focusing on hurting the other guy,
neutralizes the knife by punching the Adam's apple and
starts to shut down the other guy's Central Nervous
System.

The byproduct of the latter action is he/she gets to
go home, protect the vulnerable loved one with them,
or whatever other motivation they thought was the
reason they hurt the other guy in the first place.

The General Patton quote is pretty rough, but the
context was motivating his troops for war... literally
the same as what you're facing in a true life-or-
death struggle. He wanted each and every one of them
to come home, and he knew the best chance they had was
if they focused on inflicting as much damage as
possible to their enemy.

You'll notice... he didn't urge them to think of
their loved ones as a motivation to fight.

He told them that if they fought to inflict as much
damage as possible on the enemy, they'd return home to
them.

Take a second to re-read that quote. I think you'll
probably see it in a much different content.

Until next time,

Tim Larkin
Creator of Target-Focus(TM) Training
www.targetfocustraining.com

reading it and assuming consistancy of philosophy as it reflects application, sounds good to me.
sort of thing that would get me in the door enough to want to see how
they train.
intriquing.

Tim Larkins has good articles like Animal macyoung, but eeewww his TFT just basically repacked and updated SCARS by Peterson....Very gig, an instructor gives a FREE seminar to a military unit, or FEd agency, then he can claim " trainer of the AIR MARSHALS (the most BORING LE job I've heard, ) etc.

Then TFT is associated with LE/mil .Larkin can charge $1500 for a 2 day semi....Damm , that' a good scam....His articles are good common sense read which isn't so common

he' just changing the pov from self defense to attack the attack

As Tony Blauer points out, there are three fights: the one with yourself, the one with your opponent and the one with the judicial system. He and his coaches emphasize using only enough force to neutralize the threat. My own Blauer-certified coach once had me describe a training drill as if to a police officer, justifying my every action in terms of what my adversary had done or was about to do. It was an informative experience. I agree that accountability is legally and ethically mandatory.

But Tim Larkin is also correct, I believe, in saying that going into action determined to damage one’s attacker is critical to success. I have a feeling that no one who has ever been the victim of a savage attack would disagree with him. Richie Grannon has recently made a convincing case for the necessity of violent intent. Bob Spour emphasizes the need to be very aggressive in hostile situations and implies that most people, even trained people, are not.

As for Tim Larkin, I happen to own his Joint Breaking series and it is hair-raising stuff. But good to know in a tight spot? I have no doubt that it is.

I’d be interested to hear what others on this forum have to say about levels of violence, justifiable mayhem and whether it’s even possible to calibrate your response in a real fight against an unknown assailant without making potentially fatal assumptions.

Thanks.

--Dave

Its true that Tim was instructor for Jerry. Tim is building his niche with the intent on destruction, when your life is on the line. I like both of their work even though it is the same exact thing. The only real difference is that TFT has an instructors program and SCARS does not...well its really going to cost you if you try to get one. But I like their work, they are teaching something other then "martial arts".

I’d be interested to hear what others on this forum have to say about levels of violence, justifiable mayhem and whether it’s even possible to calibrate your response in a real fight against an unknown assailant without making potentially fatal assumptions.

Just from a shorthand perspective(not looking to much into it), I would say to keep it simple there are two levels. one level is where there is intent to cause bodily harm (beat down/teach a lesson). Another level is where there is an intent in taking a life (dark alley/at night on the street...alone).

Justifiable mayhem would be in my opinion somewhere in between the two levels. Breaking a joint with the intent to make the opponent "loose his will to fight", at the moment he gives up, you stop the attack. Clearer example; he's 6'2, 250 lbs. you are 5'7, 180. I would not want to trade blows with such an individual, out of fear I would use justifiable force (break a joint) to end the threat as soon as possible.

But you cant justify it in court if you reverse the two roles unless their is a weapon involved.

To calibrate it, once again it comes down to the moment the other "looses his will to fight". IF you continue the fight out of anger/rage then the roles change and you become the attacker even though it commenced with you defending yourself.

Fatal mistake:

If the opponent says or acts in a manner that he is going to "teach you a lesson". And you break his neck. Ya, fatal mistake.

If he says he is going to make you disappear, barrie you six feet under, cut you, shoot you, or you get surrounded by his thugs and they are all going to have a piece of you. Not a fatal mistake.

Good answer constantine

this "degree of force" is a bit of an "elephant in the room" in the self protection field- we all know its massively important yet not many people address it or train it

by not many people I include me, Ive never addressed it in a DVD and when I train its pretty much somewhere between a beatdown and murderdeathkill... maybe we should/could at least be defining it explicitly when training? at the very least would allow you to develop a range of responses and could protect you from a legal / ethical issue after an altercation?

Thanks Richie,

Whenever I teach, this is something I always cover. I don't want any of the students to end up in Jail because they received improper training/information. This is one of the problems I have with other MA schools or RB schools. They will teach you to defend yourself. But that's where the training ends.

Use too much force and your the attacker, then try convincing the jury on how you ended up causing permanent damage to the poor innocent civilian who was just asking you for directions. You need to know how to communicate with law enforcement to assure your rights as the innocent, say the wrong thing....you could end up in jail and with a possible a lawsuit.

The schools don't cover this, because they themselves(/teachers/instructors) were never educated in this field or do not have a very good understanding of the subject.

Typically, if an instructor gets asked this type of question they will refer you to a police office or a lawyer. So the question has to be asked; am I training/being trained to end up in jail for assault or manslaughter?

And most of the time the answer is "yes"!

training with an overkill attitude is popular because it generates the aggression a lot fo people are looking for and helps them overcome their fear, but if people followed what I was teaching to the letter and didnt listen to me saying "use legal restraint, be morally justified" then basically they are potentially training to deliver criminal damage.

Its a weird feild we are in- Im actually a bit surprised that we arent more heavily regulated- people bang on about Britain being a "nanny state" yet you can turn up to a seminar where an instructor can teach you things that can literally cause you or others permanent injury or death and noone bats an eyelid.

I try not to take the piss with advocating violence, always try and put caveats in there "on your head be it, use legal restraint etc" but I have never actually said: "Ok this physical technique is for control restraint and a bit of a slap and this other one is for scrabbling around in a shitty situation hoping you dont die"

I know what level you teach at Constantine - do you ever address the issue of not doing certain things that are commonly shown in street-focussed martial arts because you are worried about inflaming the situation? I've never seen it addressed and Ive never addressed it (that I can remember) but when Ive been in fights Ive certainly thought it!

So there is a gap there betwen what I teach and what I do that I should fill.


p.s.
back in the days when I did ninjitsu we all got very enamoured of a technique wherby you claw the face- cant remeber the japanese term for that- one of the lads got in a scrap in a pub in the north end of birkenhead and by the sounds of it tried to claw some guys face in a prempetive way- the guy ripped his hand off his face, knocked my fellow ninja out and then stamped all over his head for "taking the piss"

it was a sobering moment that happened about 2 weeks I jacked the togakure ryu ninpo taijitsu in for good, the last I heard my fellow ninja had barely left the house in 6 months

this is the very real danger of drilling these things without defining what they are for or when we are to use them or even (in my fellow ninja's case) how to use them properly!

So, judging by the comments, it looks as if Tim Larkin is essentially right in saying that it all comes down to question of one's motivation:

The person motivated to 'protect' himself/herself
grabs the wrist and tries to wrest control of the
knife.

The person motivated to hurt his/her other guy shifts
their torso, penetrates forward and delivers a closed
fist punch to the other guy's Adam's apple.

Two totally different responses, with totally
different results...

The former runs the risk of losing control of the
knife and getting seriously injured or killed.

The latter, by focusing on hurting the other guy,
neutralizes the knife by punching the Adam's apple and
starts to shut down the other guy's Central Nervous
System.

To me, this suggests holding the attitude that an attacker is NOT going to kill, maim or degrade me and that I'll damage him if he tries. Not stomping on his noggin if he's down in the fetal position, but not losing because I didn't fight hard enough to win.

--Dave

[quote=do you ever address the issue of not doing certain things that are commonly shown in street-focussed martial arts because you are worried about inflaming the situation? I've never seen it addressed and Ive never addressed it (that I can remember) but when Ive been in fights Ive certainly thought it! [/quote]

My sessions or a mix of training & Q&A (reasoning, logic, & law), half training & half pointing things out wether positive or negative, the cause and the result.

If I spent my whole session just training them with drill after drill. I am building a good fighter...(a stupid fighter-with no street smarts) but a good fighter none the less.

But if I train them and educate them at the same time. Then they are taking preventive mesures and less likely to have a confrontation. Im training them like I would an Execute Protection Specialist.

If its a commonly shown thing, I feel that if I don't address it, then it must not be that important, then they will percieve it as being o.k. to apply it out on the the streets.

I actually do show somethings I disagree with and the reason behind it with the a demo to prove a point.

If I tell someone this '3inch black cube will burn you, dont touch it. They may or not believe me becuase they heard somewhere else it was o.k.

If I take a candle and touch the cube, they see it melt. They are not going to touch it (reasoning & logic (law). But there is a posibility like anything else in life during a rage/anger moment they may actually do it. It will neve be a perfect world.

In my so many years in this community, I have never heard it addressed either, this is why I pay special attention to it.

So you are going to leave the knife at your throat, and punch the other guy, with the aim to incapacitating him? I'm sorry, but that sounds ridiculously dangerous to me. To point out the obvious, fuck up in ANY way, and SLICE!
Here's another option, hands up, verbal diffusion/set up, ask question of attacker (at this point, hands are palms up on either side of the knife in a submissive posture), grab wrist immediately after question, move knife away from throat along a pathway that does not take it across your body (in this case throat). Retaliate attack to eye's etc, then, get the hell out of there.
Granted, it isn't as glamorous as 'destroying the other guy', but by my reckoning it seems a heck of a surer way to get you home safe.
I am as far from an expert in these matters as it is possible to get. But common sense should be obvious to all.

i think i only contributing to the original idea because i notice it's still sort of a question. i don't think i'm right/etc...i just think the philosophy is sort of appealing (to me) from this perspective:

i get the feeling a hypothetical knife is going to be dangerous regardless of whether your doing some steven segal-ish grab and dance (that sounded opinionated about techniques that require a wee bit of skill mastery, it wasn't meant to, i just like to play with words as often as humanly possible), or whether you maybe get a quick deflect and angle in attack.

but the redeaming quality of the latter--pour moi, is that if you can get someone thinking of his own life/ass/awake-not-knocked-out-ness then his psychological posture is often less confident (then is normally), his skills are often less on their game (then is normally) and regarding a 'on one's heals' posture, the attacker script could be flipped which is a great deal more appealing as this may conversely build up the defender (as attacker instead) regarding being more on their game/skill-set/firm-footing/ etc etc etc yada yada yada.

in short...i don't want to feel like a victim, i want to feel like a nasty prick who was just waiting for something like this, etc etc building on a psychological assault, perhaps equally (if possibly of course--in practice i may shite myself and ask if he needs butter and bread to go with that lovely knife )

No real need for it to be wholly hypothetical. Have a training partner put a training blade to your throat, hard. Now, try and punch him in the throat without being cut. Now, imagine that is a real blade there...
As for the disarm, no fancy moves, I loathe the pj arts. If you can do a double palm heel, you can grab hold of a wrist and push it on an angle away from you.
This type of knife disarm, its the basic stuff. Following the same principles as gun disarm. It is when the knife is coming at you at high velocity that the nightmare begins.

...makes sense to me mate. but i'm guess i don't really represent a black and white posture on the subject. i've never had a knife to my throat,
i've had a gun pointed at my face--it turned out to be a co2 cartridge pellet pistol, but it seemed real at the time i reacted to it. and my aggressive stance, abeit one person and one moment in the grand scheme of different personalities, does add to my opinion. i know this wouldn't always work, inspite of this experience. i think the guy was thinking it was a bluff that wouldn't be called. for me, i think i would still desire--in a big way, to at least deflect before going in. perhaps since i don't have an experience that goes with my theory, i don't realize that i may just do the opposite. but i'm not sure we represent such divergent stances...
original post by me'
"maybe get a quick deflect and angle in attack"

your example of a knife pressing hard is definitely not what i was thinking about when i imagined going in

it's a good point.
my reference i suppose considers a wee bit more wiggle room. i've done the class knife drill thingy--many times, but it was always based off of non satic conditions. people i've worked with have pressure tested it and had it work. i'm still not convinced that they also weren't waying in one incident, one person, one moment.

i guess train for both, hope instinct comes in and hope for the best, eh?

...one friend i had from high school--who i should say had some serious impulse control. this can be advantagious sometimes. there's a busy area of DC
called Georgetown. it is the high street, or at least was, of the area. rich drunken 15 to 25 years old hedonists either fighting/fekking/finding things to buy. the three f's. fights are more rare, they're the late at night stuff that happens with too many college boys are piled too close together. or too many urban cowboys want a release after working long hours. enough background. it pertains to offense being a nice strategy for defense.

i was walking around aimlessly, like everyone else...someone in ordinary clothes said something inappropriate unless you happen to be a police officer like, "hey you...come here". i kinda knew that he was a police officer, kinda didn't care...he didn't offend me for some reason and i didn't have anything to hide so i just walked over. as we turned a corner, there was my friend saying, "NO, not him...i know him". i apparently fit enough of a discription of a guy that had run off. moments after another couple of cops brought over a guy (looked nothing like me but was 'wearing a white tank top'). he had pointed a gun at Charles (my friend). Charles promptly belted him, and the gun dropped to the ground. i think he was pointing the gun at Charles from a car that was fairly stuck in traffic (really dumb when you think of all the facts). the people in the car had to all run for this reason, and leave the car. but what i remember was:
a. i looked nothing like the guy they brought in
b. Charles was an attack first, ask questions second kind of guy
c. it worked for him probably because the response wasn't expected and probably because the guy didn't intend to shoot him
d. i know the alphabet (a,b,c,d, )
e. e comes after d

but seriously...i don't have the examples of weapons in motion, but it makes me take trips down memory lane, hmmm... still nothing in motion comes to mind. sorry, i just hoped someone would like the story.
Charles said i looked green when the police brought me over

Craig wrote:

So you are going to leave the knife at your throat, and punch the other guy, with the aim to incapacitating him? I'm sorry, but that sounds ridiculously dangerous to me. To point out the obvious, fuck up in ANY way, and SLICE!
Here's another option, hands up, verbal diffusion/set up, ask question of attacker (at this point, hands are palms up on either side of the knife in a submissive posture), grab wrist immediately after question, move knife away from throat along a pathway that does not take it across your body (in this case throat). Retaliate attack to eye's etc, then, get the hell out of there.
Granted, it isn't as glamorous as 'destroying the other guy', but by my reckoning it seems a heck of a surer way to get you home safe.
I am as far from an expert in these matters as it is possible to get. But common sense should be obvious to all.

What is obvious?

There is a knife, (based on a woman's perspective - always take the scenario from the weakest-physically) going to try and talk your way out under duress (step 1), then grab the wrist (step2), move it away from you (physically over power your male opponent) (step 3), then attack your opponent (step 4), run away, hoping the attacker doesn't chase you(step 5)

Tims scenario: Crush the the throat with your full body weight behind the strike, minimal strength required....a child could do this (step 1). Opponent stammers while grabbing his neck as if chocking because he cant breath..... Drops to the ground. (still on step 1). stomp on the ankle or knee with full body weight (not much needed) to crush it against the ground.(step 2) the end. Not much glamor in two steps.

As Richard Demitrie says... would you rather learn from the "learned" or the "experienced"?

Richard Dimitri uses exactly the method I describe. I suggest you watch his materials, before using him in support of a technique which he in no way uses himself.
Again, it is not a wrestle. It is a simple pushing of an unprepared arm (distracting question), thereby removing knife from the throat. From there, a shred type attack can be employed. Rich has demonstrated this repeatedly in vids out there. Even with those who have been instructed to act as soon as they sense in anyway that he is about to try a disarm.
And your question, hope he does not follow you? Why not add, hope he does not pull out a gun and shoot you in the back? One cannot account for all scenarios certainly, but if you were talking percentages, the number of those who would want to risk capture pursuing you with a knife. Especially if you are screaming out such...
Still, if you have pressure tested it hard, and it works absolutely for you, fantastic. That truly, at the end of the day is the only thing that matters for everyone. But for myself. Slice! Thanks, but I'll stick to the method above, one, which doesn't see me die in training.

trying to argue physical techniques over a forum is like... I dunno... trying to wrestle a pig- its frustrating, puts you in a bad mood, you get mud in your ears and no one learns anything... and only the pig enjoys it ... or something...

I am no defendant of Tim LArkin or TFT but I think a bad example was given with minimal qualification to make a valid point... something Ive been guilty of many times myself

A mindset focussed on destruction and attack is the POINT I reckon, but the fact is if we look at the example given by Tim, if a knife is jammed on your throat then you've got a bit of a cold steely sharp barrier to get past before you can do much - but your still focussed on "destruction" not "defense"

If the knife is at your throat and you are under threat not attack then the R.Dimitri method looks best to me (I am NO knife guy by ANY means, the only knife incidents Ive been in, I was the one holding the knife so this is well outside my experience), from what I can remember of Rich's way:

1.engage the brain with a question, set up with sneaky passive movements
2.sudden expolsive movement which removes knife and start attacking the fucker


Craig, whats with the implication that the phrase "destroying your opponent" is "glamourous"??

I feel like you've got something on your chest so just spill...you can expres any opinion you want on here, doesnt bother me, but dont be snipey, BE DIRECT

"take the kumquats out yer mouth and say what you mean"

...haha
confession time. i smelled kumquats too but didn't feel like engaging. i sensed a back and forth of writing i wasn't up for. no offense. not suggesting something worthwhile wouldn't have come out of it, or that it was beneath me to write...just knew my limitations at present.

if a combative strategy sounds "glamourous" will it not work as well as a strategy that doesnt sound "glamourous"?

if we confuse how something sounds when we see it written down with how it will kinaesthtically play out do we have the beginnings of combative synaesthesia?

for your consideration:

here is mr "destroy your opponent" he is suave and American with overtones of some kind of military background

here is mr "bash the blokes fackin' head in something proper" he is Australian and looks like Chopper Read

who would you rather train with?

one will subjectively appeal more than the other, but its just wrapping, the physical and psychological strategies that move one from point A to B will be 90% the same in my humble opinion

nicely put. and nice mental imagery.

imploding mind section///

i'm picturing this...ooo-arrr:

(007) vs. (666)

james bond vs. 'the devil'

bond takes him down, but the devil later claims his soul--about even i reckon

meds...where'd i put those meds.

Snipey? Well, I've got to say, that's a first. I've been called many things, fascist, bully, an individual whose issues have gone to the point of pathology, but snipey?
That's a pretty wankish assessment. What's so snipey about stating the obvious? That a lot of the camo wearing, me big man, me so tuff, me destroy all, type characters out there, are catering to the insecurities of a lot ten pound weakling net surfers.
In line with this, is the idea that a passive/distracting set up, is somehow weak.
Now, I didn't include all this, simply because a) I thought it to be patently obvious, and b) I was addressing a specific technique. Pointing out the obvious that leaving a blade to your throat, your throat people, seemed like a crazy idea.
Now, it may very well be that this was a poor example, presented out of context, and so, my assessment is unfair. But then again, I didn't condemn the bloke. Just the specific technique that was supplied. I restricted myself solely to that. If those who post such techniques want a more favorable receiving, or aren't open to criticism, they should either give better examples, or state their delicate sensibilities beforehand.
What's more than a little interesting is that those like myself who pass comment about a tough guy stance, are thought to be wholly ignorant of a survival mindset and the violence that can be inherent within such at times.
And that, to explain the obvious, is what I meant by glamorous. That stating that you should do what you need to, to survive, not just from an attack perspective, but also, in running the hell away, is not as 'glamorous' as saying you will destroy the fuck. Having a plan to run away/escape from a threat and being able to wholly destroy that threat are not mutually exclusive positions. Indeed, I view it as a marker as to how far I have come, that now, comfortable with my ability to destroy most, I look more to the possibilities of escape, with an end goal purely of increasing the odds in my favor. And thereby, staying alive and watching my son grow up.

Craig wrote:

Snipey? Well, I've got to say, that's a first. I've been called many things, fascist, bully, an individual whose issues have gone to the point of pathology, but snipey?
That's a pretty wankish assessment. What's so snipey about stating the obvious? That a lot of the camo wearing, me big man, me so tuff, me destroy all, type characters out there, are catering to the insecurities of a lot ten pound weakling net surfers.
In line with this, is the idea that a passive/distracting set up, is somehow weak.
Now, I didn't include all this, simply because a) I thought it to be patently obvious, and b) I was addressing a specific technique. Pointing out the obvious that leaving a blade to your throat, your throat people, seemed like a crazy idea.
Now, it may very well be that this was a poor example, presented out of context, and so, my assessment is unfair. But then again, I didn't condemn the bloke. Just the specific technique that was supplied. I restricted myself solely to that. If those who post such techniques want a more favorable receiving, or aren't open to criticism, they should either give better examples, or state their delicate sensibilities beforehand.
What's more than a little interesting is that those like myself who pass comment about a tough guy stance, are thought to be wholly ignorant of a survival mindset and the violence that can be inherent within such at times.
And that, to explain the obvious, is what I meant by glamorous. That stating that you should do what you need to, to survive, not just from an attack perspective, but also, in running the hell away, is not as 'glamorous' as saying you will destroy the fuck. Having a plan to run away/escape from a threat and being able to wholly destroy that threat are not mutually exclusive positions. Indeed, I view it as a marker as to how far I have come, that now, comfortable with my ability to destroy most, I look more to the possibilities of escape, with an end goal purely of increasing the odds in my favor. And thereby, staying alive and watching my son grow up.

thanks to everyone for being nice and patient with this guy and trying to balance the argument, dont know what the problem is and frankly I dont really care... locked and blocked