Theory of Combat I

[Le Professeur]

The division of a confrontation into four distinct segments—entry, contact, forward pressure, and finalisation—constitutes a coherent attempt to structure a phenomenon that is fundamentally chaotic. Fighting, whether in sport, martial practice, or personal protection, is characterised by a nonlinear dynamic in which behaviours emerge under the constraints of stress, uncertainty, and interaction with an opponent who possesses their own intentions. Movement sciences, cognitive psychology, and contemporary research in tactical performance agree that creating functional categories allows practitioners to better perceive, interpret, and anticipate transitions that unfold within fractions of a second. This operational grammar is not an arbitrary simplification but a way of rendering a complex process intelligible, comparable to the models used in neuroergonomics to describe phases of engagement in adversarial environments.

There are clear parallels with other theoretical frameworks widely used in the fields of security and martial arts. Self-defence models, for example, rely on the pre-incident, incident, and post-incident triad, which organises the understanding of danger before, during, and after its expression. Similarly, approaches based on behavioural analysis, often grouped under the “Left of Bang” model, emphasise the determining importance of what precedes physical impact—namely the ensemble of weak signals, intention dynamics, and behavioural cues that make it possible to anticipate emerging violence. In combat sports, coaches and analysts use comparable functional categories, distinguishing distance closing, the exchange phase, continuous pressure, and the termination of the match by knockout, submission, or decision. Research in sports science shows that such segmentation promotes better acquisition of perceptual-motor skills and a greater ability to manage tactical transitions under stress.

The specificity of the four-segment model lies in the precision of its internal inflections. It begins explicitly before any physical interaction, in that liminal zone where danger perception, spatial management, intention reading, and the decision to engage or avoid are at play. Behavioural neuroscience shows that this pre-contact phase mobilises rapid decision-making circuits located at the intersection of amygdalar alert systems and the frontal networks involved in motor planning. The model then distinguishes the first instant of contact from the rest of the confrontation. This moment, often neglected in classical approaches, represents a critical interface where forces, body alignments, emotional stability, and the quality of tactile perception simultaneously manifest. Biomechanical research demonstrates that micro-interactions of pressure, pulling, and collision during first contact directly condition a fighter’s ability to maintain balance, read the opponent’s intention, and steer subsequent action.

The third phase—forward pressure—is treated as an autonomous domain, whereas it is often diluted in broader models. This distinction is essential, because performance-psychology studies show that managing an advantage is a process different from obtaining it. Maintaining pressure requires the ability to control space, rhythm, angles, and movement economy while integrating continuous perceptual adjustments. It is a domain of high cognitive load, as the practitioner must simultaneously attack, defend, anticipate, and adapt while avoiding internal disorganisation caused by physiological stress.

Finally, the finalisation phase occupies a decisive place in this structure, for it represents the actual closure of the confrontation. Contrary to romantic or sport-based conceptions of fighting, this is the phase in which legal risks, physiological dangers for the opponent, and ethical implications are concentrated. Contemporary research in applied criminology and operational security reminds us that most severe injuries and judgement errors occur in this final segment, at the moment when excitement, fatigue, and the will to conclude impair decisional clarity. Finalisation therefore requires a specific set of skills: control of the opponent’s body, the ability to prevent a resurgence of initiative, management of residual stress, and sufficient discernment to determine when and how to stop.

This entire framework can be understood as a deepening of the general “before, during, after” model, offering a more refined breakdown of the central moment in which physical confrontation unfolds. By dividing the “during” into three sub-moments—entry, contact, and forward pressure—it provides a functional map that better reflects the physiological, psychological, and tactical reality of encounters. Such refinement also enables more targeted pedagogy, as each segment highlights distinct skills, specific recurring errors, and particular internal representations. Structuring chaos does not mean simplifying it, but rather giving fighters a mental architecture that enhances their capacity for adaptation, understanding, and mastery at the very heart of uncertainty.

(To Be Continued)