Theory of Combat II : Phase 1

[Le Professeur]

The entry phase constitutes the most decisive tactical dimension of an encounter, because it unfolds within that ambiguous space where violence has not yet materialized, but where the conditions for its emergence are already in place. It corresponds to what contemporary self-defense literature describes as the pre-incident zone, a moment in which behavioral, intentional, and contextual cues indicate that the interaction is shifting toward a potential conflict. Research in behavioral analysis shows that aggressive body language, unjustified reductions of distance, attempts to isolate a victim, or diversion maneuvers are subtle yet reliable indicators of a progressively rising threat. At this stage, the threat remains malleable: the individual can choose to defuse it, withdraw from it, or, when forced to do so, prepare for it. Entry is therefore not merely a mechanical prelude to the clash, but a decision-making space in which most of the prevention—and, when unavoidable, the initial superiority—is determined.

This phase engages two complementary planes simultaneously. The first concerns detection and decision-making. Cognitive neuroscience shows that the ability to quickly perceive early indicators of aggression depends on distributed attentional processes, involving vigilance networks as well as systems for social perception and threat evaluation. Early detection opens a range of options: stepping back, establishing a verbal barrier, repositioning the body, creating an obstacle, or conversely taking the initiative. The critical nature of this micro-temporal window lies in the fact that decisions are still strategic rather than purely reflexive. Once violence begins, responses are dominated by neurophysiological survival mechanisms; before that point, the practitioner retains a degree of cognitive freedom.

The second plane concerns distance management, which forms the cornerstone of all martial tactics. Studies in combat biomechanics show that distance determines the available technical options, the effective execution speed, the temporal reaction margin, and the possibility either to neutralize or circumvent an attack. In combat sports, this mastery is conceptualized through notions such as “bridging the gap,” the ability to effectively cross the space separating two fighters, or “level changing,” referring to vertical variations used to disrupt the opponent’s perception or to create openings toward the clinch or takedowns. Practitioners learn to move from kicking distance to punching distance, then to close-contact range, each zone requiring a specific bodily geometry, a different postural organization, and an adapted reading of the opponent’s intention.

In self-defense, this dynamic is often reversed: the goal is not to approach but to prevent the aggressor from crossing the critical distance at which the attack becomes unavoidable. Disciplines oriented toward personal protection emphasize the creation of a “security perimeter,” based on body orientation, management of environmental obstacles, lateral mobility, and anticipatory use of the voice or hands to signal a physical boundary. Analyses of real situations show that most successful assaults begin with an intrusion into this intimate zone before the victim has managed—or dared—to intervene. The entry phase must therefore be understood as a full tactical skill in its own right, mobilizing acute observation, rapid decision-making, emotional regulation, and the ability to structure the surrounding space. It is the moment when it is determined whether the practitioner will endure the adversary’s dynamic or impose their own.

In practical terms, the entry phase relies on a set of interdependent skills that, far from constituting a mere preamble to combat, determine the entire trajectory of the encounter. The first of these is the ability to organize space. Movement science shows that perceiving and exploiting angles, using economical footwork, and maintaining awareness of immediate obstacles—furniture, walls, uneven surfaces, bystanders—directly influence tactical survival. A fighter who masters this environment can steer the exchange toward more favorable zones, maintain an exit route, or conversely channel the opponent into a predictable movement corridor. Research in ecological psychology emphasizes that individuals who correctly manage their “spatial affordance” increase their anticipatory capacity while reducing the cognitive load required to react.

To this spatial management is added the crucial issue of non-telegraphing and feinting. Motor neuroscience research demonstrates that humans unconsciously detect micro-signals preceding movement, such as changes in muscle tone or shifts in postural balance. Reducing these signals delays the opponent’s information-gathering, creating a temporal gap sufficient to seize initiative. Feinting exploits perceptual biases of the nervous system by inducing a premature or inappropriate response; it not only creates openings but also tests the opponent’s sensitivity, reactivity, and strategy. Neurocognitively, it acts as a deliberate perturbation the opponent must interpret, thereby slowing their decision-making processes and increasing their vulnerability.

Reading the opponent’s behavior forms a third fundamental pillar. Research in movement analysis and social cognition has shown that motor intention always precedes observable action through a series of micro-indicators: gaze orientation, head inclination, shoulder tension, and weight shifts from one foot to the other. These signals, though subtle, are readable to a trained fighter and allow anticipation of the angle, nature, and timing of the attack. Traditional martial systems and contemporary close-quarter combat methods converge on this point: the quality of the entry depends largely on the capacity to perceive these pre-kinematic variations and respond before the movement becomes irreversible.

Finally comes the strategic dimension. Offensive entry, which involves taking initiative, requires precise commitment and a fine reading of the moment in which the opponent is least capable of reacting. “Yield-and-counter” entry tactics, which make use of provocation, are based on biomechanical and cognitive principles that draw the opponent into attacking under unfavorable conditions, thereby creating exploitable counter-timing. Interception, or stop-hit, relies on models of reaction time and on acting within the exact interval during which the opponent exposes themselves by initiating their attack. These three strategies are not interchangeable: each corresponds to a specific reading of distance, rhythm, and the opponent’s bodily structure, as well as a different tolerance for risk.

Contemporary training methods, particularly those inspired by ecological dynamics, emphasize that these skills cannot be solidified through mechanical repetition of pre-scripted entry techniques. Research indicates that motor learning is reinforced when the practitioner is placed in dynamic, variable, sometimes chaotic environments in which perception, decision, and action reorganize themselves in real time. These approaches favor semi-improvised game-based situations, where parameters constantly change and the practitioner must adjust distance, angles, feints, and strategic choices under fluctuating constraints. They align with observations from high-level combat sports: the best fighters do not merely possess effective entry techniques; they exhibit superior adaptability, shaped by repeated exposure to unpredictable contexts.

Thus, the techniques and skills of the entry phase form a coherent system that integrates perception, decision-making, biomechanics, and strategy. They constitute the foundation upon which the rest of the fight rests, because initial advantage, once acquired during this phase, tends to carry forward into subsequent segments and profoundly influence the outcome of the confrontation.

The entry phase also possesses a distinctive psychological dimension, as it corresponds to the moment when the possibility of avoiding confrontation fades and the organism shifts into a state of acute alert. Stress neuroscience shows that this transition activates threat circuits—particularly the amygdala and brainstem vigilance networks—leading to a rapid increase in heart rate, changes in breathing, and a reduction in heart-rate variability. This physiological reorganization, intended to prepare the body for action, is accompanied by the subjective perception of fear, which is not a sign of weakness but an adaptive marker. Initial fear is not theoretical: it signals increased cognitive load, since the practitioner must simultaneously monitor the opponent, analyze the situation, apply a strategy, and manage their own internal state.

One of the most marked consequences of this neurophysiological shift is the onset of attentional tunneling. Research in cognitive psychology shows that under acute stress, peripheral vision drastically narrows, causing excessive focus on the immediate threat and reducing the ability to perceive the wider environment. If unanticipated, this phenomenon can result in the failure to detect potential accomplices, available exits, or obstacles in the space. Psychological preparation for entry must therefore include mechanisms that help maintain some degree of attentional flexibility despite rising stress, in order to avoid losing information essential to contextual management.

At the same time, the organism naturally tends toward avoidance behaviors—such as passive retreat or bodily rigidification—due to the temporary dominance of defensive reflexes. Survival behavior research shows that when an individual lacks a pre-established plan or specific training, they often relinquish control by allowing the opponent to dictate rhythm and distance. This retreat, perceived as a simple instinctive gesture, profoundly alters the tactical dynamic: backing away without intention opens space to the aggressor, grants them initiative, and creates a pursuit effect that makes recovery far more difficult.

To counter these effects, modern self-defense systems emphasize the prior development of a mental decision map. This map consists of a series of pre-formatted options—verbal de-escalation, lateral repositioning, establishing a non-aggressive physical barrier, fleeing, or striking first when necessary—which the practitioner must know and integrate before encountering danger. Cognitive science shows that decision-making under stress relies primarily on automated schemas rather than complex reasoning. Having these internal markers in place before an incident prevents the entry phase from being experienced as a collapse of control, providing a cognitively economical framework from which to act.

Thus, the psychology of entry is not limited to understanding fear reactions, but consists in transforming these reactions into tactical leverage. By preparing the mind to recognize its own physiological limits, anticipate attentional narrowing, and rely on a pre-established decision structure, the practitioner transforms a potentially paralyzing phase into a moment of strategic clarity. This preparation, grounded in well-documented psychobiological mechanisms, constitutes one of the key determinants of success or failure in the entry phase—and therefore of the entire confrontation.