THREE - SECOND FIGHTING: The Five Responses Strategy and Fence Tactic For Real-World self-defence Against the Gratuitous Aggressor

By Lito Angeles

"The saddest truth you will ever hear is that violence can only be stopped by greater violence, whether it is on a school playground where the bully dishes out misery on those weaker than himself or on the bloodied battlefields of war.... Violence is very wrong, but sometimes it is necessary in the interests of peace." So says Geoff Thompson, the renowned self-defence instructor and legendary ex-bouncer from Great Britain who was undefeated in over 300 fights during a nine plus year period "on the door" at some of England's most notorious night clubs. Through those experiences, he learned that controlling fear along with attacking first, when all other options have failed, are the keys to victory in real-world street fights.

In my previous article on Thompson (Black Belt, August 1998), I wrote about his fear adrenal map which detailed the various disguises of fear in combat. In this one, I will cover the five responses strategy and fence tactic that Thompson advocates for self defence against a gratuitous aggressor. A gratuitous aggressor in this case is someone who instigates an ego-based confrontation stemming from accidental or incidental situations such as looking at him the "wrong" way, bumping into him, being involved in a traffic collision with him, inadvertently cutting him off in traffic, swiping a parking space from him, etc. As I delineate the five responses, I am going to detail Thompson's fence tactic and the appropriate counter ensures in dealing with this type of adversary.

Before a person can establish effective strategies and tactics for self defence, he must first examine and understand the "battlefield" involved. With this in mind, Thompson has identified three kinds of fights: match fighting, ambush fighting, and three-second fighting. A match fight is any kind of fight, be it street or sport, with or without rules, where there is tacit or mutual consent or knowledge between the combatants. In this kind of fight the six S' - skill, size, strength, speed, stamina and py(s)che decide the outcome. On the other hand, an ambush fight is a blind-sided surprise attack in which the person (victim) is caught completely unaware and off-guard. A three-second fight is a real world street fight involving the 3 Cs - confrontation, conflict, and combat. The use of deception and surprise are the cornerstones of this kind of fight. With the volatile situation unresolved, deceptive dialogue is employed as a distraction followed shortly by a pre-emptive attack which often decides the outcome immediately. Thompson coined this kind of fight as three-second fighting because it is usually over within that time frame.

Now that the real-world "battlefield" has been clearly established, let's proceed to the five responses strategy. Thompson says that if you are dealing with a gratuitous aggressor due to an inadvertent or accidental situation, your first response should be to avoid him anyway you can. You do this through awareness and assessment of your adversary, environment, and surroundings. However, if you cannot avoid him and are confronted, Thompson says your second response should be to escape in whatever manner possible. This can usually be accomplished by quickly assessing the situation and utilising diversionary tactics to create an opening for a getaway. If for some reason escaping is impossible, Thompson says your third response should be verbal dissuasion, which means using submissive dialogue to de-escalate the aggressor's hostility. Thompson considers this stage the pivotal period in a confrontation. When it gets to this point against a gratuitous aggressor, it is time to utilise the 'fence" tactic.

The fence is the term Thompson came up with to describe his pre-fight physical tactic. It consists of utilising the hands (usually the lead hand, but can be the rear one or both) in a non-aggressive manner as a physical barrier between you and your adversary. Since most ego-based confrontations start at what Thompson calls conversation range (i.e. talking distance - approximately 18 inches), the fence, your lead hand, serves to maintain a safe gap just long enough for you to escape, talk down the situation, or pre-emptively attack the aggressor. Placed correctly, the lead hand will not only maintain a safe gap, but will also nullify your aggressor's weapons (e.g. punches, elbows, headbutts, and knees). Though he may not realise it on a conscious level, your adversary will instinctively know that until the fence has been removed or bypassed, his techniques have no clear way of getting through.

Besides serving as a physical barrier, the fence has three other functions. The first is what Thompson calls the sensory tentacle. The lead hand acts as a sensor to your aggressor's intentions. He should not touch the fence unless he makes a forward movement to bridge the gap. Any forward movement should be checked by the lead hand to maintain a safe gap because it is a subliminal precursor to an attack. In Thompson's opinion, the maximum number of times an aggressor should touch your fence is twice. If you don't pre-emptively attack him at that point, he will soon be attacking you or it might end up turning into a matchfighting situation. The next function of the fence is as a range finder. The lead hand allows you to judge the exact distance for an accurate pre-emptive strike. The last function of the fence is to act as a physical action trigger. The touching of the lead hand by the aggressor can serve to mentally initiate (i.e. solidifying your decision to attack) then physically initiate (i.e. using the touch as a "springboard" to launch your strike) your pre-emptive attack.

Returning to Thompson's third response - verbal dissuasion, he specifically recommends subtly controlling the aggressor with the fence and using dissuasive dialogue for "loopholing." "Loopholing" is giving your adversary an honourable way out of the situation so that he doesn't lose "face". If your dissuasive dialogue doesn't de-escalate the volatile situation then Thompson says the fourth response - posturing can be employed. This is psyching out the aggressor with extremely aggressive physical gestures and verbal reprimands. Thompson says you can bypass this response and employ the fifth response, pre-emptive attack if you so desire. However, he strongly advocates the use of posturing because he believes that physical violence should be the absolute last option you have to resort to. Furthermore, he feels that it's a good tactic for people who cannot bring themselves to pre-emptively attack their adversary. This is his preferred tactic in handling a gratuitous aggressor. Since Thompson places a great deal of importance on this response, let's examine it in more detail.

Posturing should be employed when the situation has reached an impasse and you think it is going to become physical. So when the aggressor is trying to bridge the gap and take down your fence, you must take the fence to a conscious level by shoving your adversary with your lead hand and simultaneously stepping back (if you have the space to do so) to create a big gap, approximately five feet would be good, between you and him. The purpose of this shove is to trigger an adrenaline release in your adversary making him feel the urge to run away (i.e. the "flight" response. Reinforce your shove with a very aggressive verbal lashing like, "stay there, don't ****ing move!" The use of expletives adds intent and induces more fear in your adversary. Once you have created the gap follow it up with "ballooning." This is done by aggressively pacing side to side, back and forth without taking your eyes off the aggressor, again reinforcing this with verbal reprimands. You should also support your ballooning with finger pointing. This adds more force and credibility to your 'posturing." This tactic very often causes what Thompson likes to call the "sticky feet syndrome." This occurs when on one hand, your adversary wants to move forward because of peer pressure to fight, then on the other hand, his body lurches forward but his feet stay stuck firmly on the ground because his natural fear instinct is telling him to run away. Even if he doesn't run away, the fact that he feels like doing so will create more confusion and self-doubt, triggering more adrenaline, which causes a downward spiral to capitulation. Thompson recommends that you take advantage of your adversary's confusion and make your getaway as soon as possible.

There are two problems associated with posturing that Thompson says you should be aware of. One, you give up the element of deception and two, the element of surprise, should you decide to attack or if your adversary isn't psyched out by this tactic. The confrontation then becomes a match fighting situation which will most likely be decided by the six S' - skill, size, strength, speed, stamina and py(s)che.

Thompson says the winner and loser in most street confrontations is usually determined during the verbal dissuasion/posturing period (i.e. the pre-fight stage). He says that if this period is mismanaged, it will quickly become a match fight, which goes into a clinching struggle then to ground fighting. This is not a good place to be unless you are highly skilled and fighting with one unskilled or not-so-skilled adversary who is on the ground with you, hopefully without a knife on him or friends in the vicinity. So if verbal dissuasion is failing and you decide to bypass posturing, Thompson says that your fifth and final response against a gratuitous aggressor is a pre-emptive attack. Before I get into the details of this response, I would first like to cover what Thompson calls the "rituals of violence." These rituals are the precursors to an attack and if you can identify them, you can stop your adversary's imminent attack with a pre-emptive attack of your own. Thompson says that it is crucial to thoroughly understand these rituals in order to properly employ a pre-emptive attack response.

The "rituals of violence" are the bodily signs and verbal cues that a gratuitous aggressor will telegraph preceding an attack. These rituals are embodied in what Thompson calls the "four D's" of entrapment: dialogue, deception, distraction, and destruction. Thompson says that prior to his attack, your adversary's dialogue will probably be aggressive. If you happen to be dealing with a seasoned street fighter, the dialogue will be used to deceive and distract you before he destroys you. In terms of bodily signs, Thompson says the gratuitous aggressor will be displaying some or all of the following characteristics: aggressive staring with the eyes bulging, chest and lats expanding, arms splaying, fingers beckoning, head nodding, neck pecking, eyebrows dropping, standing up in a fighting position, and distance close-down. In regards to verbal cues, Thompson says that words like "yeah", "and", or "so" are often said just before an attack. He says the use of single syllable words are a sure bet that the dialogue is ending and the attack is coming soon.

Going back to the final response, if you have exhausted all other options and decide that a pre-emptive attack is necessary, then Thompson suggests doing so off the fence with your most powerful strike. Unless you are very experienced, he says anything less is the quickest way to the graveyard; so either attack all out or do not attack at all.

Looking at the specifics of attacking off the fence starting with stances, Thompson has three fence positions he likes to utilise: the pleading fence, the staggered fence, and the exclamation fence. All three positions have the same feet placement: a compact 45degree angled stance with the dominant-side back. The difference between them lies in the placement of the hands.

In the pleading fence, both hands are placed in front of you, palms facing the aggressor several inches away from him. Thompson likes this fence because it looks submissive but presents a solid physical barrier that keeps a safe gap between you and your adversary. It also positions the fingers nicely for an eye attack should it be needed.

With the staggered fence, the palms are again facing forward but with the hands staggered by about one foot. Thompson says the hand in back would be the ideal one to use for attack, though the lead hand is also perfectly placed for an eye attack.

Finally, in the exclamation fence, the palms are facing upward expressing exclamation with the lead hand pushed forward as a fence and the rear hand cocked to strike.

The next component for effectively attacking off the fence deals with the verbal action trigger. Thompson says a verbal action trigger is a word or sentence that you can use to initiate your attack. He says that when you are facing an intimidating aggressor it is very difficult to know exactly when to initiate your attack. A verbal action trigger will take away your indecisiveness and automatically trigger your attack. Thompson says that you should use an out-of-context question such as, "Is your mom's name, Elsie?" as opposed to a flat statement, because along with triggering action, it will serve to switch off your adversary's adrenaline and engage his brain in thought. This question also serves as a subliminal intimation to your adversary that you wish to extend the conversation thereby deceiving him even more. The final element for this response is the attack itself Thompson says that the attack is your chosen main artillery technique. He recommends that you perfect one or two powerful hand techniques from punching range (i.e. conversation range) because that is the distance most often gravitated to in real street confrontations. Thompson says that there is little point in manufacturing another range when the one you are already in, or most likely to be in, is the most clinical one anyway. From this range, he says it takes just a split second to finish a fight with one good hand technique. Many inexperienced martial artists will probably dispute this; however, Thompson had over 50 one-punch . knockouts in his career as a bouncer. He says that with the right information and loads of courage, the one-punch knockout is very attainable.

In the vast majority of confrontations that Thompson has been involved in, his main artillery technique was either a right cross or a right hook executed off the rear side and in a few situations, a forward head butt. These three along with the left hook are the techniques he recommends to choose from and develop. As a reminder, Thompson suggests picking one or two of these techniques and practising them to perfection. You should have supreme confidence with your main artillery.

As you may have noticed, Thompson's personal main artillery techniques (the right cross and right hook) come off the rear-side. He prefers this because it allows him to put total body torque behind a punch for maximum power (the exception is the lead hook). Now some of you may think that punching from the rear-side is slower and more telegraphic than punching from the lead-side. Thompson says that the time difference between the two is negligible; it is a matter of a millisecond difference. He adds that speed is not the major factor to knocking an adversary out anyway; accuracy is. A speedy attack that is not accurate is unlikely to knockout an adversary. In regards to being more telegraphic, Thompson says that is nullified with the other main factor - deception. He mentioned that many of his former colleagues were slow, rear-side punchers, but got knockouts all the time because they were so good at engaging an adversary's mind before attacking and were very accurate to boot. When the mind is engaged, time stands still, and for however long it is still, your attack needs only to be as quick as that. Furthermore, your adversary will be experiencing tunnel vision as a by-product of adrenaline. This means that you can strike without him seeing it.

Now that we have examined each component of attacking off the fence separately, let's put it all together into a cohesive tactic. Thompson refers to this fifth and final response as the "sniper option." Before I go on, Thompson wants to make it clearly understood that this response should only be utilised after all the others have been exhausted. He emphasises that this should be the last option possible. With that said, let's imagine you're in a volatile situation with a gratuitous aggressor. You have attempted to avoid, escape, dissuade to no avail and you're not comfortable or confident enough to use posturing. You have repeatedly apologised, back-pedalled, and offered to make amends, but the aggressor is still hostile with bad intentions. At this point, Thompson says you have established the moral and legal justification to neutralise the threat at hand. This means it is time to switch on your "killer instinct" and utilise the sniper option.

Thompson says, first of all, you should not allow the aggressor to touch your fence more than two times. Each time he does, the situation worsens because at some point in the immediate future he will pre-emptively attack you. So you must beat him to it or else suffer the consequences - defeat, possibly with serious bodily injury or death.

Once the situation has gotten to the point where the sniper option is your last option, Thompson says that you may only have one chance to utilise it. Once the opportunity is gone, it will never present itself again. In that case, you will be attacked first and most likely be beaten to a pulp. So he says it's imperative that your pre-emptive attack be a destroying technique that hits your opponent like a cannonball. Anything less and you'll be in a match fight. Having said that, here's how to employ Thompson's sniper option. First, line up your adversary using the fence to control the range and physically trigger your attack. Second, look at the designated target. For Thompson, that would be the jaw, which he considers the ultimate target. Third, mentally disarm him and engage his mind by using your verbal action trigger. Fourth, strike accurately through the target with your main artillery technique. For Thompson, that would be a right cross or a right hook. For maximum effect, launch your pre-emptive attack with total commitment immediately after your trigger question. Fifth, it is Thompson's recommendation that you immediately escape. This might not be how you see fighting, but it is a good self-defence strategy: hit and run. He says the only time you need to finish off an adversary is when he is still an immediate threat; if he is not, then there is no need to follow up. Thompson says that he has seen too many people go for a finish when it was not necessary and as a consequence, lose because their adversaries grabbed them. So use the distraction of your attack to get away safely.

If by some chance your pre-emptive attack fails (perhaps due to an inaccurate strike or an opponent with a granite jaw) and you cannot escape safely, Thompson says it's time to automatically employ your "support system." The support system, as he refers to it, consists of every concept and technique you've ever 1eatned and realistically applied in training. It serves as the back-up arsenal when the main artillery fails or is not an option. It is utilised immediately as a follow-up in which you spontaneously attack your adversary with a barrage of techniques that flow with the moment until he is incapacitated enough for you to get away safely.

Many of you may be concerned about the legal implications of pre-emptively attacking a gratuitous aggressor for self-defence; so let's address this issue with some general legal guidelines to ensure your general compliance with the law. First, as a rule of thumb, the right to self-defence by pre-emptive attack is permissible only when the defender reasonably believes that he is in apparent danger and an attack by the aggressor is imminent. It is essential that the defender be without fault himself in the situation. Understand that the relative size, strength, weight, age, and demeanour of the combatants are some of the factors considered in determining the reasonableness of this belief .

Second, the degree of force a defender may use in self-defence must be roughly equivalent to the perceived danger he is in. In other words, the defender should only use enough force which he honestly and reasonably believes to be necessary to ensure his own safety. Note that the presence of a weapon, multiple aggressors, and a disparity in size, strength, weight, and age are a few of the factors taken into consideration when gauging what degree of force is reasonable. Finally, the right to self-defence generally ends once the immediate threat no longer exists.

Ethically and legally, Thompson's strategy and tactics tie in nicely with these three points. He believes in avoiding, escaping, and verbally dissuading a gratuitous aggressor before resorting to a physical response to resolve a hostile conflict. He also advocates the use of non-lethal force in subduing an adversary unless the situation is life threatening. Furthermore, he strongly discourages finishing off an opponent who is no longer an immediate threat. In fact, he highly recommends escaping to a safe location immediately after the first strike connects to ensure personal safety and prevent the situation from getting worse.

The three points I outlined are by no means a thorough discourse on the laws pertaining to self-defence; far from it. Once again, they are just general legal guidelines intended to make you more aware of the legal implications of self-defence and to keep you in general compliance with the law.

Since laws vary from state to state, I recommend that you consult a competent attorney in your area. He/she can give you a more thorough understanding of the law, specific advice, and clarify statutes and decisions relating to self-defence issues. If necessary, you will also have someone to call on to defend you in court.

Specifically addressing, Thompson's recommendation to ' hit and run", he says or once you have struck your adversary, you should immediately escape from the danger zone and run to a safe area for a number of reasons. One, if your adversary is not sufficiently stunned, he will recover in a few seconds and the situation will turn into a match fight with the possibility of serious bodily injury or worse inflicted on one or both of you. Two, your adversary might have a weapon on him or near him to use against you. Even if he doesn't, if you hang around too long, he may obtain one and use it against you. Three, he may have friends at the location who might come to his aid and gang up on you. If necessary, once you are at a safe location, you can call the paramedics if you are concerned about the welfare of your adversary and notify the police to report the incident.

As you have just read, Thompson has a game plan based on a pre-determined strategy executed with economical tactics. He says that it is essential to have a proactive plan of action because it allow you to respond decisively rather than react involuntarily to a hostile threat. Accordingly, Thompson states that the methods of action utilised in this strategy should be basic and small in number for it to be effective. He believes that one technique mastered is better than one hundred sampled. His point here is that when a pressure-filled confrontation becomes "live", if you have too many techniques to choose from, you will get a mental logjam and be defeated while in the process of selecting the right technique to employ.

"Attack is the secret to defence. Defence is the planning of an attack." Sun Tzu wrote these words more than 25 centuries ago and they still hold true today. If you were perceptive, you probably noticed the absence of defensive techniques in Thompson's game plan. Undefeated in over 300 street fights, he has never blocked, jammed, parried, evaded, or intercepted an attack. When dissuasive or posturing tactics were failing and he was sure that his adversary was about to attack, Thompson always attacked first and continued attacking until his adversary was neutralised. This is how he defeated many opponents that were bigger and/or more skilled than him. Otherwise, if these were match fights, Thompson says many of them may have beaten him. Interestingly enough, none of his opponents ever came back for a rematch.

Thompson is often told by inexperienced and idealistic martial artists that when facing a gratuitous aggressor, the defender should wait until the aggressor initiates an attack before spontaneously defending himself and countering back. Thompson says that this is too late. In real-world street fights, defensive and counterattacking tactics just don't work. Action is faster than reaction especially when you're standing just one to two feet away from each other and can't predict how, when, or where your adversary is going to attack. Pairing that fact with the elements of deception and surprise, if your adversary attacks you first, your chances of blocking, jamming, parrying, evading, or intercepting his attack are slim to none. Thompson says that unless you are extremely skilled and pressure-tested, your reaction to a pre-emptive attack will most likely be a negative one with pain, confusion, and defeat ensuing.

Now if you are ambushed and the first you know of the situation is the attack itself, Thompson says that spontaneous reaction is not only a sound concept but the only concept you have. However, by being constantly aware of your surroundings, getting ambushed should be difficult. That means most likely your adversary's attack will come from the front usually preceded by deceptive dialogue. Thompson says this allows you to take the initiative and control the situation with the fence. He states that this is where knowledge of a gratuitous aggressor's rituals of violence and physical/verbal precursors to attack are imperative. By understanding these signs and cues, you will be able to see exactly when your adversary intends to initiate his attack, which allows you to escape and if not possible, pre-emptively attack him first. Thompson says the aggressor's precursory movements will almost give you a countdown to his physical attack.

Sir Winston Churchill once said, "many people stumble upon the truth and then get back up and wander off as though nothing happened." In this article, I've delineated Thompson's innovative strategy and tactics as thoroughly but concisely as possible with the hopes that it stimulates and educates fellow martial artists on the realities of real world self-defence. However, I'm concerned that Thompson's message and methods may be too hard to accept because it will force many people to see how far astray they've become and it might mean too many changes for them to make. A sad fact is that the truth is often too simple to appreciate and at face value, this is why many people fail to recognise the potency in Thompson's methods. Nevertheless, Thompson's methods have been successfully street-proven countless number of times. His strategy and tactics unquestionably give the average person the functional ability to realistically defend himself against a gratuitous aggressor who may be bigger, faster, stronger, and more skilled. I've specifically applied Thompson's strategy and tactics against this type of opponent because he is the most common adversary that a man might encounter on the "street." However, with slight modifications, Thompson's methods can be adapted for either sex against any other type of adversary (e.g. robber, rapist, murderer).

In conclusion, avoiding a physical conflict should be your number one priority for self-defence. Thompson strongly believes that a person should sincerely employ all non violent ways and means to resolve a conflict before resorting to a physical response. However, when all these options fail, the fence tactic is a highly functional way of controlling a hostile adversary. When no other recourse is possible, it is the perfect platform to "strike first, strike fast, strike hard, strike last" to neutralise the threat and end the conflict.

To contact Geoff Thompson, write P.O. Box 307, Coventry CV3 2YP, West Midlands, United Kingdom or visit his website at www.geoffthompson.com. ABOUT THE A UTHOR: Lito Angeles is a Southern California-based police officer and martial arts instructor.

SFUK wishes to thank Geoff Thompson for his kind permission to publish this article