Do You Have a Question?

If you have a question about Shorthand Empty Hand, e-mail Phil Elmore and ask it.  Answers will appear here as questions are answered on a first-sent, first served basis.

I've read a great deal about you at Bullshido, where they say you're not qualified to teach (and a lot of other pretty nasty things.)  What's their problem with you?

That site is the most famous troll pit on the Web and, no, they really don't like me there.  This is due in part to the fact that the membership there hates most everyone;  when you have little skill and low self-esteem, the fastest route to salving your insecurities is to ridicule everyone and anyone who's managed to be productive in the field of self-defense.  I've written an entire FAQ file at my 'zine, The Martialist, covering the more common reasons the "bullshidoka" spend so much time obsessing over me.

Their ire is also caused by the fact that I'm just an average guy and therefore not very impressive.  Because the members at that site don't find me impressive, they resent the fact that I write cogently on the topic of self-defense.  It strikes to the very heart of their insecurities and their envy – because if someone like me can become known in the self-defense field, I must be asserting that I am somehow better than are they.  There is a tremendous amount of ego involved in the martial arts for some people, and these people project onto others their ego-related problems.  They assume that I must be trying to convince the world how tough or cool I believe myself to be;  the idea that I'm earnestly sharing what I've learned is alien to them.

Most of the people whose work I respect have done their "turn in the barrel" at Bullshido (though I seem to be one of the most obsessively discussed topics at the site – it's enough to make a guy think he's important), as well as the usual list of frauds and other nutjobs whom any objective observer can identify as illegitimate.  I see it as a badge of honor that I am so hated at that forum, for if they liked me I would be a little worried about what that said about the company I keep.

I heard one of your former instructors called you "a dead rank beginner with little skill."  Is this true?

A former instructor of mine, stating his honest belief about me at the time, did indeed write just that.  Specifically, he said this:

You on the other hand barely train and are viewed by your former and present instructor AND former and present classmates as a dead rank beginner with VERY LITTLE skill or real life experience... despite your "15 years" in martial arts.

As you can imagine, a quote of this nature was immediately exalted by my critics as evidence of my [place derogatory descriptor here]. "Why, even Phil Elmore's former instructor says he's a beginner with no skill! There you have it, folks, the gospel truth on the matter!"

The problem, however, is that when one's critics are incapable of rational thought – when those critics' thinking is clouded by hatred, resentment, and even envy – those critics are only too eager to seize on any and all negative commentary from any source that supports their assumptions, biases, and misconceptions, regardless of context and regardless of why the source said them.

The fact is that my instructor and I got into a pretty heated argument over the release of the Shorthand Empty Hand book.  He was concerned about what it might contain and I understood his concerns – but we started going back and forth over it anyway.  Things boiled over and we both said things we regret in the course of several months of bickering over the Internet.  Almost immediately after he said those words I've quoted, my instructor apologized and deleted them – but it was too late;  they'd already been pasted by others and took on an exaggerated life of their own.

Remember, too, that my instructor promoted me not once, but twice.  If I was the poor student we are expected to believe I was in his revision of history where I am concerned, why would have have promoted me both times?  I was one of his senior students.  I had been with the school since it opened.  We were friends.  Compare and contrast this to the various negative things he had to say about me after we had our falling out.

I fanned the flames myself in stumping for my cause on the Web.  Finally, thanks to the intervention of one of my current instructors, I met with my former teacher over dinner.  We worked things out, expressed mutual sorrow over the incident, and agreed to put it behind us.  At least, I thought we did.

My friend and teacher David Pearson has said I have "average to above average ability" and that I "[pick] up concepts quickly and [am] good at applying them." If you'd like a more objective and more official opinion of my abilities, only six months after I started training in Liu Seong Gung Fu, my teacher (the well-respected Sifu Guro Dan Donzella) had this to say:

Since Phil Elmore has been my student he has made steady progress in understanding and using the chuan-fa/tjimande systems. His power and technique [have] improved steadily over the last six months.

Didn't former classmates of yours agree with your former teacher's negative assessment?

I'll tell you something right now:  nobody wins a political dispute in the martial community.  If I was once your classmate, I imagine you'd have your own opinion about me.  I don't imagine I'd improve that opinion if I then engaged in a political dispute with your teacher and insulted him in the course of it.  As I wrote previously about a famous fight between two practitioners of a traditional art,

When the “fight” was over, neither party was injured. So what does this tell us? It tells us almost nothing. From it we learn nothing about [the style] as a system (other than the need for cross-training in grappling to cover what is arguably a blind spot...). We learn relatively little about the two participants, other than that they didn’t hurt each other. We learn, simply, that politics can leave a black eye on a style that no amount of punching can inflict.

I used to think politics were something that happened out there, something that didn't and wouldn't touch me.  I learned I was wrong – because I learned I have just as much capacity for politicking (and for ruthless politicking) as anyone else.  Fortunately, I also learned that it is possible to get over whatever issues prompt such politicking.  I am pleased to report that any previous disputes I've had in this regard have been resolved positively.

Do you feel good about giving people advice on self defense that you yourself have not proven effective in real life altercations?

I feel good about sharing the conclusions I have drawn on self-defense based on my own study, research, and training to this point, yes. I don't think you have to have shot someone to teach other people how to shoot (though of course you must practice with firearms in a realistic manner), nor do I think you have to have engaged in a street brawl to relate logical, reasonable advice about physical self-defense. Nothing in the Shorthand Empty Hand curriculum is terribly complicated and none of it is particularly earth-shattering; it's all grounded, basic stuff.

I'm a writer, not a fighter. I'm a citizen, not a soldier. I'm an average guy, not a superhero. I'm an everyman, not an athlete. In the time I've studied the martial arts and self-defense I've managed to learn concepts and make conclusions about techniques that I think are worth passing on to other average citizens – in the context of sharing them as such. I don't try to pretend to be anything I'm not and I don't expect anyone to be impressed by the curriculum simply because I say they should be or because of whatever credentials I'd like to have and don't. Rather, I think the material in the SHEH program (just like my articles at The Martialist) stands on its own merits.

It's simple, straightforward self-defense advice based on what I've gleaned in my own training and study, presented in the way I thought best. That is really the only unique thing I bring to the project, as I make no claims of being Bruce Lee, Let li, or even Tommy Lee with a bad hangover – my ability to write clearly, effectively, and in an engaging and entertaining style.

What if someone who doesn't know what he's doing reads your book and then gets himself hurt?  Don't you care?  The book should have a big disclaimer across its front saying you don't know what you're doing.

I've spent enough time studying the martial arts and self-defense to be able to write, cogently and reasonably, a book about the basics of self-defense.  For anyone terribly concerned about from whom they are learning, the book contains an extensive discussion of my own background. I am never anything but honest with my readers. I tell them what I think, and why; I also tell them who I am. They are then free to make their own choices – a theme I emphasize often. That is the respect I have for my readers as sovereign individuals.

As for the technical information the book contains, it is very basic. With a couple of rare exceptions I think most people would have a hard time disagreeing with it. Of course, to disagree with its content would require a critic actually to read it. Since releasing the book a lot of people have howled in outrage over its existence, but these people all have in common the fact that they've not read it.

Shorthand Empty Hand is a book I would proudly and confidently give to a loved one, a family member, a friend, a coworker. It is my statement of opinion on the topic of self-defense – and my opinions would not be my opinions if I did not believe in them wholeheartedly. When I am out and about myself, this is the material I use (in part – I did not put everything I think, believe, know, and do in a single 112 page book) to defend myself and my family.

Anyone who simply reads a single book and thinks, "Now I am prepared to defend myself" is obviously a danger to himself and others, if not only through simple ignorance. As I say in my own marketing copy for the book, "No system is the ultimate system and no book can truly teach you what you must do to fight another human being..."

The book gives the reader the conceptual framework necessary to preserve his or her life by imparting, as concisely as I could, the ideas necessary to approach the pursuit of success in self-defense. That was my purpose in writing the book. I pictured the reader as, say, a relative with no experience for whom I was afraid – and put together what I thought that hypothetical family member would need.

If no book can teach what you need to know to fight someone, how does this give the reader the "conceptual framework" to preserve his life?

Success in self-defense starts with mindset.  You will never manage to defend yourself if you continue living in a fantasy world where what is has been ignored in favor of what you wish was true.  The book explains the frank reality of the violent world in which we live and gives extensive advice about how to view that world.  From within that context it goes on to impart basic principles that are vital to self-defense.  The book also includes some simple techniques, but these have no value without that mindset, without that context.  Someone with no knowledge of self-defense will be able to acquire the mental foundation from which to pursue the study of self-defense within the pages of Shorthand Empty Hand.

How often have you tested against a resisting opponent the techniques and principles you are teaching? My concern is that someone picks this stuff up and thinks it is coming from an experienced fighter, assumes it will work.... and gets his ass handed to him.

Anyone who picks up a book and thinks he's now qualified to fight another person deserves to "get his ass handed to him." As I've said, the Shorthand Empty Hand core curriculum text is a guide to study and a conceptual framework for self-defense, but it means nothing as a book by itself. The techniques themselves are all techniques that can and have been used by others for self-defense; whether I've tested a palm heel or a punch or a knee or an elbow is fairly irrelevant to the fact that all of these techniques have been used and do work (and have also failed to work, depending on the practitioner).

You said that you took from other systems to create this style. What systems and techniques did you use?

I drew from everything I've studied or researched that I liked. I drew from Karate, from Wing Chun, from Silat, from Shanliang Li, from WWII combatives, from others' interpretations of WWII combatives, and from anything else with which I had any familiarity (if I liked a given technique, I took it). Most of these systems have the techniques in common, really, such as palm strikes and punches.

I went to great pains, however, to point out in the book and on my sites that what I am demonstrating is NOT what is taught by any teacher with whom I've trained. I don't presume to represent any of them. If anything I do looks like something I learned previously, well, the influence is obvious. If anything I do looks like an incorrect interpretation of something I learned previously, the error is mine (and I say so).

Are your interpretations of said stylized techniques correct?

My interpretations of the techniques work for me; I couldn't say if they're correct in that I'm sure any number of instructors could tell me, "That's now how I teach it," or "that's not how I do it," or even, "That's structurally incorrect." I chose only what I was comfortable doing and what I'd found preferable.

If you answered "It is my interpretation therefore "correct" does not apply," what was your reason for changing it?

Any changes I made were made to – quite bluntly – suit what I am capable of doing. That's what makes this the "average citizen's" curriculum; I'm pretty damned average, if not less than average.

Shouldn't "average people" be learning from professionals, from people much more experienced than are they?

I'm the perfect person to write a curriculum for average people.  That's because I can relate to average people and communicate effectively to them.  When this is coupled to my research and love for the subject matter, it produces what I think is a unique result.  That's why, in a market already flooded with self-defense books, I thought there existed a niche for Shorthand Empty Hand.

Do you really trust "intuitive footwork?" Most of the beginners I know have to learn how to move properly for fighting... NOT WALKING.

I do. I've adopted my preference for natural footwork because I've found I don't like and have real difficulty applying complex footwork; it's as simple as that. Most people don't have trouble walking, yes, which is why I'm capitalizing on that.

Where did you get your theory of "Focus on nothing and everything?" Your description, "Instead, take in the whole body as a single entity, seeing everything and nothing at once" IS the purpose of looking at the persons dan tien... their center... their "everything."

It's a concept about which I've read and with which I've practiced over the years, mostly because of my horribly nearsighted vision. Focusing on the dan tien as some teach it seemed perfectly in keeping with what I'd been told previously, or at least a variation thereof.  If it overlaps, that's fine by me.

How often do you train?

I cross-train with two different instructors regularly, train privately with a third teacher as time allows, and do quite a bit of training on my own.  Like you, I am always learning and always striving to get better.

You have a lot of weapons and gadgets. How much time per day or per straining session to you practice using them?

I practice with my weaponry fairly constantly, though I don't get to the shooting range as often as I would like because I'm using a range out of town.

Can you really do everything you talk about? REALLY think about this because you cannot go and show people concepts you cannot do yourself.

The system I set up is tailored precisely to what I can do; that's why I am confident that just about anyone can learn to apply it.

Have you been in any real confrontations before? How recent was your last one, and did you win or lose?

"I hurt somebody's feelings once," as the saying goes. I don't answer that question because no good ever comes of it. If I'd been in a documented altercation, it would be public record; If I've been in undocumented confrontations, it would be stupid of me to admit this; if I've been in none, this will simply be seen by some as spurious proof for the assertion that, hell, if I haven't gone out and fought someone, how can I tell anyone else anything about self-defense?

The system is not about how tough or cool I think I am, or how tough or cool I want you to think I am.  I realize a lot of people cannot look at someone else's effort in self-defense without seeing ego;  this is because they are themselves tangled up with it and trying to prove something to somebody.  This is not my goal and it is not my focus.