General Category > Frequently Asked SFC Questions

Differences Between the CQC and the PAC


" a question came up during a recent seminar. If someone is looking for rank in PAC, does the PAC-rank count for CQC-Instructorship?? Your webpage states that in PAC Unarmed Combatives, Stick and Knife-Levels are included."
That is a very good question and it comes up a lot.
- The PAC course does not count in the CQC Instructorship. The PAC course is a MMA style/based course.
Many PAC techniques are similar to the CQC courses at times, but the PAC is based on Filipino, Karate, Jujitsu, Silat, Hawaiian material. I try to make the PAC material very combative, but I know the difference in "going to war" and the martial arts. That is why the PAC courses has extra and advanced, skilled material in it, to satisfy talented athletes and martial artists. For example, I may show a hand strike to my CQC guys and then show that same handstrike to PAC people and justify showing them many extra drills and tricks to the same handstrike.
- The CQC Group courses does not include Double Sticks and Espada y Daga
- The PAC course does not include firearms
SFC Instructors can make rank and instructors in the individual PAC, Hand, Stick, Knife and Gun courses when certified to do so. But, only I, in person, can make CQC Group Instructors and that is almost always at a CQC Group Camp. The CQC Group is my own, personal "Dirty Dozen." As an example, no one has achieved level 10 yet in almost 12 years.
 In order to get rank in the PAC course, lets just say for here the PAC Level One for example.
* Experience/comfortable with Level 1 of the UC
* Experience/comfortable with Level 1 of the Knife
* Experience/comfortable with Level 1 of the Stick / SDMS
* MASTER the Level one PAC Double Weapons level
* MASTER the Level one PAC "Make the Connection" level
If I know someone is comfortable and familiar with UC 1, Knife 1 and Stick 1 material, and is REALLY GOOD at PAC Double Weapons 1 and PAC Make the Connection 1, they can get PAC Level 1 rank for $50 USDs.
I say "comfortable" because there are many Filipino/Silat/karate/jujitsu people who are very experienced with hand, stick, knife and I am able to recognize this experience and quickly embrace them into PAC 1. People with lots of related experience should be recognized in this "Mixed Martial Art" of the PAC.
An experienced Pacific arts, martial artist should know "about a level 1's amount of knowledge" in hand, single stick and knife to get PAC 1. How does one define "about a level's worth of knowledge?"  I define it and I listen to my area instructor's opinion. I look at the overall big picture and decide what someone should know.
If people want Level one of the Unarmed Combatives course, they have to "master" the Level 1 of the UC Course as it exactly is. That rank is $50 USDs
If people want Level one of the Knife course, they have to "master" the Level 1 of the Knife Course as it exactly is. That rank is $50 USDs
If people want Level one of the Unarmed Stick course, they have to "master" the Level 1 of the stick course as it exactly is. That rank is $50 USDs
So, when someone gets PAC 1 rank certification, they does not automatically mean they also get handed an official rank certificates for the "combat/reality" courses of hand 1, stick 1, knife 1 and certainly not gun 1. Practitioners would have to emphasize and excel on hand 1, stick 1, knife 1 and gun 1 AND they would have to pay $50 each for combat rank in each combat course.   
These are explanations that are too complicated for the PAC webpage and would just confuse a beginner when reading the introductory page. Next, some people think "AHA!" I can get ALL those rank course certificates and save money by just paying the $50 PAC course. But they are different enough.

The PAC course is a mixed martial art course of the Pacific Islands systems. It looks a lot like many courses. If I have a citizen, a cop or a soldier needing self defense? I am not signing them up to the PAC course.

If I have a guy who wants to learn cool things and stretch his skills and challenge his limits and loves history, lineage in say- the Japanese martial arts or is interested in this ...this..."silat thing?" Then he is a candidate for the PAC.

Some things will look the same between the CQC and the PAC.
But any martial art is a distraction from reality fighting.
 I hope that makes some sense?


One thing I have to keep explain regularly is how is the SDMS Tactical stick/baton course different than the Filipino martial arts (FMA) stick material.

Well, of course some of it is the the same. But int he big picture, FMA builds a 28" stick vs 28" dueler. Material is built in and deep for a stick versus stick fight. A duel.

Yet, in most countries, now even in the Filippines, a stick versus stick fiht is statistically improbable. In the SDMS course, I want to develop you usin your stock/ baton to threaten, block, strike and grapple against anyone, armed with anything. 

The mixed MODERN weapons world.

FMA is an abstract method to fight tactically. Sometimes it is spot on, sometimes it is not. But to break free you have to hang up the red vest, the terms, the often strange unathletic stances,  the dance, the worshipping grandmater structure and many residual effects.


Hey Hock,
 maestro James. I just love your pac material. You have some of the best videos on FMA, Even though you don't claim to be a guro(your actions speak louder than words). I was wondering which system do you find most effective? Pac or SFC?


Technically, both the PAC and CQC are SFC courses.

I think you mean PAC and the CQC- Close Quarters courses and I think they are more effective because they were taylored just for the pure essense of reality combat.

The PAC course has the touch of the martial abstact (and no gun material.) Has to be when you do copious amounts of double sticks and drills...

(I was "made a Guru" in the Philippines in 1993. But I find the title pretentious, as I find most titles abused and pretentious. Everybody just calls me Hock, not even "sir." I feel VERY uncomfortable being called titles.)


[0] Message Index

Go to full version