questioning Geoff Thompson

Hey guys

The other night I was having a conversation (via Email) with an acquaintance, who has studied martial arts, and self defence to quite a large degree. We talked about many subjects in this category, when we reached the subject of Geoff Thompson and Peter Consterdine , I imagined that we would agree upon how good their work is ( At least it seemed that way to me, sensible well thought out, and it seems they had experience to back it up). However this acquaintance also has experience in this area , and I was surprised to learn that they did not rate the pair at all.

Put simply he said that Geoff Thompson was a small town bouncer, who sucker punched a load of drunken teens and old men, discovered that his club level karate was not as good as boxing ( which is common sense), and then used that to start a rep and build his SD clique. Nothing that great at all. He also seemed to think that Mr Consterdine was all hype as well, and that he didnt really do real security work. He also claimed that bouncers arent a good source for SD advice as while they fight, they have to stay at the door, have a backup team, and mostly fight people so drunk anyone could win.

Now I stress that I have always liked the work of Thompson and Consterdine. They seem to have the right Idea, but I have had no experience with the two directly, and my own lacking experience means that something that seems good to me could be completely rubbish.

So the question is, 1. Do most people rate them well, and 2. Does anyone have any 1st hand experience of seeing Geoff and Peter in a real fight ?

Sorry to bother, but its just something I have been thinking about recently.

 

Simon had a point I think. Parallel to this, both experience and psychology count for a lot, which accounts for some "tough" guys never having "trained". You can't escape the fact that Geoff's done it, so there is some level. Is he as good as a UFC fighter? I doubt it very much!

The ideas of fighting drunkards etc. there is something in that. And most fights do end pretty quickly. Your average Saturday night thug is a bully, who wins fights because people don't fight back, so, yes, their opponents aren't top rate, but it doesn't mean they have no experience either.

I think Geoff rates himself as "hard" - I think that's a fair assessment.

Hand-to-hand with the marines, or Anderson Silva - I think he might reassess

 

I agree, self defence should be the benchmark, not "real fighting"

As for acquaintance he is an Ex soldier (know for a fact), ex bouncer (know for a fact) and martial artist. (dont know for a fact but claims)

 

Haters gonna hate.

Most people have a pretty decent opinion of Geoff Thompson and to a slightly lesser extent Peter Consterdine. Thompson in particular offers solid practical self defence advice that doesn't require 10 years of training before you can apply it.

 

Good credentials. Do you think your friend might be making the point that a teacher has skills as a teacher? And that someone who hasn't contemplated teaching every day might not have the best things to show you?

 

...where on earth did you infer that from?

 

what interested me was that he used to be a bouncer, but does not rate being a bouncer as an SD qualification.

 

There are bouncers and there are bouncers. My local tesco has a doorman - doubt he sees as much action as the boys on the door of a club in Brixton.

 

From my experience with bouncers, they are good with locks/holds/restraint. I have one friend who's worked as a bouncer, and in other security roles - he's good at very close range, very dominant, but he's not a good fighter.

 

Ex soldier in H2H terms mean he has little to no experience

Ex bouncer put's him in the same realm as Geoff

"Martial artist" is nebulous without futher qualification

I have met and trained with Geoff whilst I was a BCA Instructor. His skillset is first rate in his Karate, boxing, wrestling and a number of other systems. Significantly your friend avoided mentioning Peter, who is decorated karate competitor, senior ranked within Karate (7th or 8th Dan legit I believe) and an international trainer of many others including Spetznaz.

I also an friends with many people who know Geoff and Peter well, and their skill level means their endorsement carries weight.

Bottom line: Your friend is - to put it bluntly - wrong.

 

No they aren't as a rule. They are good at punching and swarming en masse and ejecting troublemakers

Few, if any, bouncers apply locks and restraints are usually "grab the head and squeeze"

 

I would question your acquaintance's knowledge and perception of both men.

Geoff and Peter are both very experienced martial artists. In addition to his Karate Geoff is both a qualified boxing coach and catch wrestling coach.

Geoff 'may only' have worked as a 'bouncer' but he has produced well researched work beyond his own personal experiences including interviews with violent criminals. He is recognised as one of the 'go to' guys because he worked hard to get himself to that level.

In addition to his karate Peter has extensive experience as a Close Protection operative, trainer, and security adviser.

Are martial arts the same as civilian self defence? No but there are overlaps.
Is bouncing/crowd control/security the same as civilian self defence? No, but there are overlaps.
Is Police work the same as civilian self defence? No, but there are overlaps.
Is military experience the same as civilian self defence? No, but there are overlaps.
Is Close protection/bodyguarding the same as civilian self defence? No, but there are overlaps.

Practical experience in the above fields isn't going to make you an 'expert' in self defence, but it can be useful. It isn't necessary to have practical experience in those fields to be good or knowledgeable. What you teach and what you know is more important than what you've personally done. To look at this from a sporting angle, you don't necessarily expect a top tier fighter to be a good coach, or a top tier fighter's coach to have been a top level competitor himself/herself.

Both men have real life experience relevant to self defence, martial arts skill relevant to self defence, and have shown (through their books) that they have done research to cover gaps. They have a good reputation because they have worked for it.

With regard to 'seeing' Geoff or Peter in fights...
If you've seen a good self defence coach in a lot of violent situations that are actually 'civilian self defence' ones rather than physical intervention in violent incidents forced upon them by the nature of their work, then that person is most likely a very poor self defence coach.

 

As Holy has pointed out a bouncer in Coventry (Geoff) is worth more in terms of experience than a bouncer in Mothercare

Also consider the era; Geoff was very much "old school" when he did his role, and he regrets many of his actions. He applauds the modernisation of the doorman's role.

From SD it is a bit artificial given that you are already in "frontline" mode - but in terms of awareness, risk and collateral involvement and actual midset of opposition it is quite the baptism by fire

 

Really? I need to read that book again!

Of course, it's common-sense

 

I wanted to chime in but you guys got it covered.

 

What were you gonna say?

 

Pretty much what Han and jwt wrote. Apparently they type faster.

 

Ah. Group theory adds credibility don't you know

 

thanks for the input and patience guys.

On other forums I have been shot down point blank for questioning a popular teacher, no explanations just "if you dont know, then you are an idiot" end of story.