Sunday, June 22, 2008

Black Belt Magazine: Interview with Kelly McCann

Greetings,

I've discussed Black Belt before, but the two articles ("Combat in the Real World," Parts 1 and 2) of the Kelly McCann interview in the June and July issues deserves a Paleo highlight.

A combatives specialist who teaches military and law enforcement, McCann is not widely known but sure seems to be one tough guy. I can't recommend these two issues (for the articles in them) enough.

Some excerpts that I personally adored:

June
"You can use a pen to stab. You can fold a credit card and use it to cut a guy's face. You can grab a soda can and rip it in half--and you'll have two knives. Even a videocassette, slung into a guy's throat, can be more effective, and quicker, than an empty-hand technique."

"...and if I have to, I'm going to gut him like a fish to save my life."

"Shoot a bullet at me and I'll shoot artillery back at you."


July

"Some martial arts teach you to love your enemy. I hate my enemy. When he attacks, I'm going to crush him--physically, spiritually and mentally--and I won't feel bad about it."

"If it's gentle, I don't want to do it. I want to give my attacker the worst day of his life."

"Defending, by its very nature, is losing. You can't win through defense. Attack, attack, attack."


Now tell me that's not spectacular?

Spencer

15 comments:

Stephen Boyd said...

LOL!Yep! That's one of my countrymen, with a name like McCann. I really like his philosophy about giving his attacker a bad day. If you are going to defend yourself, you want to cause your attacker to think, "hmmmmm, last time I did that I got beat up, maybe I won't do that anymore".

olde.fashioned said...

you want to cause your attacker to think, "hmmmmm, last time I did that I got beat up, maybe I won't do that anymore".

Even *I* agree with that philosophy!! ;-D

Do you regard everyone with a name that begins with "Mc" as a countryman?

Mada said...

Erm, he's a bit on the violent side. Even for me.

If I needed to, I'd fight, but not with the passion he describes. It almost glorifies violence.

Stephen Boyd said...

The same philosophy applies to guns
and
yes, I do most certainly count anyone whose name begins with "Mc", "Mac", and "O". These prefixes denote people with the same Celtic heritage I have.

It does sound rather violent, but I believe that violence is ok, strictly in a defensive setting. (think "Batman Begins")

olde.fashioned said...

If I needed to, I'd fight, but not with the passion he describes. It almost glorifies violence.

I think what this guy is trying to say, is that if he was attacked, he would throw himself into protecting himself (and presumably his family) whole-heartedly and without reservation. He's not talking about a boxing match -- he's talking about life-and-death self defense, or at least that's my take on it. I don't think it's glorifying violence to make clear that you'll defend yourself to the utmost if necessary.

These prefixes denote people with the same Celtic heritage I have.

Well I know that!. ;-P But that means then that we would be your countrymen, because we have ancestors with "Mc" in their surnames on both sides of the family. ;-D

And this is rather random (but provoked by your comment about Batman Begins) but do you regard vigilantism (is that even a word?) as "defense"?

Stephen Boyd said...

What I meant by my reference to Batman Begins, is the fact the Wayne would not be an "executioner", he only fought defensively, but I have absolutely no idea what his standard is/was.

I'm not sure about "vigilantism" being a word, but I guess it all depends on your definition. I have not done alot of research into the idea of "Vigilantes", but it seems that it would infer a "mob rule", which I am definantly against.

olde.fashioned said...

Well I guess I meant that by his becoming a vigilante, he was crossing the line between defense and into offense. ;-) But one could argue it was in defense of his city.

Stephen Boyd said...

Spencer:
On a (rather) off topic subject, what is your opinion of "The Last Samurai"? (movie)

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

I really like his philosophy about giving his attacker a bad day. If you are going to defend yourself, you want to cause your attacker to think, "hmmmmm, last time I did that I got beat up, maybe I won't do that anymore".

Exactly! That's my approach!


Erm, he's a bit on the violent side. Even for me.

If I needed to, I'd fight, but not with the passion he describes. It almost glorifies violence.


Well maybe the quotes I gave are giving a biased view of the articles, and this, McCann. I did choose my favorite statements, and they were the "grittiest." In the interview McCann also advised people to avoid combat as much as possible, and he even said "And by the way, you should give him your wallet."

McCann merely takes the same view I do: if someone is out to do nothing less than hurt or kill you or your family, you must defeat them. If they can't be dissuaded and already have decided to cause physical harm, only physical combat will stop them, and they must be utterly and completely beaten to be stopped. And if you are reluctant to fight (in the wise way, that is) you only fight when you need to, so you should use any and all means to achieve victory. In other words, someone picks on me but things don't get 100% life-threatening, I'd prefer to avoid the conflict. Say, if I got married and someone picked on my wife and someone attacked my her for whatever reason, I would literally assault them with everything I've got and with little mercy, going as far as I had to to make sure he would never taste of victory, whether that meant simply driving him off, knocking him out cold, wounding him, breaking bones, or, even killing him. I'd do it all, if I had to.

I can't speak for McCann, but this is my firm view.

It does sound rather violent, but I believe that violence is ok, strictly in a defensive setting.

There's a nice short way to put it for you. :-P

Spencer:
On a (rather) off topic subject, what is your opinion of "The Last Samurai"? (movie)


Curiously, I'm somewhat in the middle. My normal movie standards would condemn this film, but I like half of it still. In short, it is so pro-Eastern and against anything Western that it is, in essence, anti-Christian. The history is also appalling.

On the other hand, the battle scenes are absolutely fantastic, and few films can compellingly convey the samurai way of war. There's a thing about the samurai, their way of life, of war, their conglomerate soul and being.... I absolutely hate half of it, but the other half I am in love with.

I guess that's just because any and all warrior cultures have an appeal to me.

Spencer

olde.fashioned said...

I absolutely hate half of it, but the other half I am in love with.

How's that for an ambiguous answer? ;-P I agree with Spencer. Watch it for the costumes and the battle scenes, and for Colonel-I-walked-out-of-a-Victorian-tin-type-Bagley and his fabulous hair, but plug your ears when it comes to the politics and history. ;-) Oh yeah, and Ken Watanabe steals every scene from Tom Cruise. (actually, just about EVERYBODY can out-act Tom Cruise. haha.)

Have you seen it, Stephen, or are you just thinking about it?

Stephen Boyd said...

I was just curious, was'nt really planning on seeing it.

BTW, everyone really enjoyed Wives and Daughters!

olde.fashioned said...

Ah.

Yay!! :-D I think it's such a sweet movie. I love Molly, and I even like Cynthia, except for when she was stealing Roger away.

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

I was just curious, was'nt really planning on seeing it.

It's probably best to avoid it, actually. :-P

And who likes Roger? *raises hand*

Spencer

Mada said...

Thanks Spencer. That clears up a few things for me. ;-)

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

Well good then. That was my intent. :-P

Spencer