Theory of Combat V : Phase 4

[Le Professeur]

The completion phase represents the moment when a confrontation ends decisively—when the opponent is no longer able to continue acting or to reconstitute any meaningful threat.

In striking-based disciplines, this conclusion appears as a knockout or internal injury—that is, a state in which neurological integrity or active defensive capacity is sufficiently compromised for the fight to be stopped. In grappling arts or Chin Na, completion takes the form of a submission, whether through a choke that disrupts cerebral oxygenation or a joint lock that forces a limb into an unsustainable degree of constraint. In self-defense contexts, completion does not necessarily aim at absolute neutralization, but at creating enough space to escape: the objective is to interrupt the aggressor’s offensive potential long enough—through control, imbalance, targeted pain or temporary restraint—for the practitioner to withdraw safely.

Finally, in situations where third-party intervention is expected—security staff, police—completion takes the form of a durable immobilization meant to prevent the opponent from standing up or regaining initiative until external support arrives.

Scientific literature on fight-ending strategies highlights two fundamental principles. The first stresses that any attempt at finishing without a dominant position is inherently high-risk. Biomechanical analyses of grappling and close-quarters combat show that submissions or final strikes require prior control of the opponent’s center of gravity, base, and limbs. Without this structural dominance, the opponent retains enough potential action to reverse, escape the danger zone, or turn the finishing attempt into an offensive opportunity. For this structural reason, expert fighters systematically prioritize obtaining a stable position—mount, back control, side control, dominant pressure—before attempting any terminal technique.

The second principle concerns the dangers inherent in rushing. Decision-making psychology under stress shows that the desire to finish can lead to impulsive actions in which alignment, awareness, and structure are sacrificed in order to seize a perceived opening. This haste creates acute vulnerability: many of the most spectacular reversals or effective counterattacks occur precisely when one fighter attempts to conclude too early, without securing the technical frame. Combat physiology shows that fatigue, arousal, and adrenaline impair one’s ability to accurately assess the opponent’s stability, increasing the likelihood of decisive misjudgment during this delicate phase.

Thus, finishing should not be understood as a spectacular gesture or isolated act, but as the methodical culmination of the preceding construction of the fight. It requires mechanical dominance, cognitive control, and emotional clarity that allow accumulated advantage to be transformed into a safe, effective, context-appropriate closure. This combined demand makes finishing a complex skill in which technical mastery cannot be separated from strategic and psychophysiological mastery.

⸻

In survival-oriented combat disciplines, the finishing phase is never an isolated action: it belongs to a methodically constructed sequence in which each stage conditions the next.

This process begins with securing a dominant position, because mechanical advantage always precedes technical advantage. Biomechanical analyses show that mount, back control, side control, or a well-established clinch provide a favorable lever relationship, reduce the opponent’s mobility, and increase the practitioner’s ability to apply focused force. In these positions, the practitioner’s center of gravity lies above or beside the opponent’s, limiting rotations, bridging actions and evasive attempts. Stability is therefore the initial condition of any finishing attempt: without it, even a perfectly executed technique remains vulnerable to reversal or escape.

Once dominant position is obtained, the second step is to systematically reduce the opponent’s escape options. Research on tactical performance emphasizes the importance of controlling the hips and shoulders, as these are the main engines of escape or reversal. Controlling the pelvis, immobilizing the shoulders, managing the head or trapping the hands amounts to neutralizing the joints and muscle chains responsible for turning and escaping. This work—often subtle—transforms the opponent into a body with fragmented motor capacity: his segments can no longer synchronize, making any escape attempt energetically costly and mechanically difficult. Combat theory holds that this progressive reduction of mobility is a prerequisite for any decisive attack.

From this partial immobilization, the third step is to create an exploitable opening. Far from being brutal, this process is based on attrition or provocation. Through targeted strikes, chest pressure, weight shifts or base manipulations, the practitioner forces the opponent to expose a part of his body he was previously protecting. Muscular fatigue, respiratory constraint, pain, or the necessity to defend another threat induce the opponent to extend an arm, turn the neck, raise the chin or shift the hips. This involuntary exposure is the direct consequence of positional dominance: it is a forced breach, not an initial flaw. Studies in exercise physiology show that under prolonged pressure, resistance thresholds and attentional capacity drop, increasing the probability of exploitable errors.

The final phase then follows: the application of the finishing technique. This may be a choke, a joint lock, or a series of focused strikes aimed at inducing fear and panic. At this stage, effectiveness depends on precision, but even more on maintaining the structure built in the previous stages. The opponent, even weakened, always retains some reactive potential. This is why advanced practitioners pay careful attention to base management, direction of force, and the safety of their own posture during execution. Success at this step rests on integrating the mechanical, respiratory and neurological constraints imposed on the opponent.

Throughout the process, tactical vigilance remains essential. Even in a dominant position, the practitioner must remain aware of risks such as reversals, counter-submissions, or—in self-defense settings—the possibility of the aggressor reaching for a weapon. In non-sport environments, the arrival of a second aggressor must also be considered, radically altering priorities: a prolonged hold-down may become counterproductive, and finishing may need to prioritize escape creation above all. This peripheral awareness makes finishing not only a technical action but also a cognitive one, requiring a continuous balance between mechanical efficiency, personal safety, and contextual adaptation.

Thus understood, finishing in combat is never an isolated gesture but the outcome of a complete tactical architecture. It results from a precise chain: position generates control, control generates opening, opening generates conclusion. This logical continuum—based equally on mechanical principles and the psychology of confrontation—is what distinguishes a controlled finish from mere technical opportunism.

⸻

Within the framework of self-defense, finishing can never be conceived according to the same criteria as in combat sports or codified martial situations.

It is embedded within ethical, legal, and contextual constraints that profoundly transform its nature and purpose. Whereas the ring provides regulation, refereeing, and voluntary symmetry between participants, real situations are asymmetric, uncertain, and legally exposed. Finishing must therefore be conceived not as the destruction of the aggressor but as the restoration of immediate safety—proportionate, necessary, and legally defensible.

The first imperative is proportionality. Many legal systems recognize self-defense, but only insofar as the response remains necessary and proportional to the threat. Legal scholarship shows that disproportion—striking a neutralized aggressor, applying a lock causing severe injury when escape was possible, or continuing action after danger has ceased—exposes one to serious criminal charges. Numerous cases show that excessive force, even if motivated by genuine fear, can be reclassified as an offense. Finishing must therefore consider not only effectiveness but also its justifiability to a third party—witness, camera, or court.

The second constraint concerns the potential severity of harm. In sports, rules, refereeing, and trained participants dramatically reduce the risk of permanent injury. In real-world contexts, none of these protections exist. A well-placed strike, a prolonged choke, an uncontrolled dislocation or a poorly absorbed fall can lead to irreversible consequences: neurological injury, complex fractures, permanent disability, or death. Trauma studies show that in uncontrolled environments, ground conditions, objects, the aggressor’s physiological state, or simple mass differences drastically increase the risk of irreparable damage. Ending a violent encounter in the street is therefore never a neutral act; its implications go far beyond the tactical dimension.

The third constraint is the human environment. The presence of witnesses, surveillance cameras, friends of the aggressor or additional assailants changes the dynamic completely. A ground control that is tactically valid against a single opponent may become suicidal if a second attacker intervenes. Behavioral studies on multiple-attacker aggression show that immobilizing one person on the ground increases vulnerability to strikes from others, as mobility is lost. Witnesses and cameras also shape the legal narrative: what they perceive often becomes the legally accepted version of events. A practitioner who continues offensive action while the aggressor is visibly trying to disengage is in a fragile position, regardless of internal justification.

For these reasons, modern self-protection systems favor a conception of finishing centered not on destroying the opponent but on creating an escape window. This perspective is supported by extensive research in violence-prevention sciences: survival and personal safety come before domination. Many methods therefore teach brief, targeted techniques— off-balancing, strikes to sensitive areas, transitional controls, posture manipulation—meant to interrupt hostile action long enough for the practitioner to disengage. The goal is not total neutralization, but freeing oneself from a hold, gaining angle or distance, and leaving the danger zone.

In all cases, to protect one’s physical integrity, it is essential to remember the old American saying: “better to be judged by twelve than carried by four.”

This approach is not only tactical; it is ethical. By recognizing that every act of violence may carry severe consequences, it places individual responsibility at the center of the process. Finishing becomes not an act of domination but an act of preservation—of oneself, of bystanders, and even of the aggressor. It requires clarity, emotional control, and discipline, for the line between legitimate defense and excessive violence is often thin when adrenaline, fear and confusion saturate perception.

In this sense, finishing in self-defense is one of the domains in which technique and moral awareness meet in the most direct way.