# On Reality Based Self Defense



## Joab (Jun 30, 2009)

What is reality based self defense? According to Jim Wagner, "reality based" is defined as training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that practitioners are likely to encounter in their environements (their "reality")

source:www.selfdefenseresource.com/reality-based/articles/reality-based=overview.php

Are Reality based self defense systems really more practical than traditional martial arts in terms of training for self defense in likely scenarios, or are traditional martial arts just as practical as reality based self defense systems? All opinions appreciated.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 30, 2009)

Joab said:


> What is reality based self defense? According to Jim Wagner, "reality based" is defined as training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that practitioners are likely to encounter in their environements (their "reality")
> 
> source:www.selfdefenseresource.com/reality-based/articles/reality-based=overview.php
> 
> Are Reality based self defense systems really more practical than traditional martial arts in terms of training for self defense in likely scenarios, or are traditional martial arts just as practical as reality based self defense systems? All opinions appreciated.


 Traditional martial arts are less effective in that much of your training time may be spent on something you will never see on the street; however, the concept of falling and getting off the line of attack should be sound; so it aint a total waste of time. It just takes longer to get proficient.
Sean


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 30, 2009)

Joab said:


> What is reality based self defense? According to Jim Wagner, "reality based" is defined as training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that practitioners are likely to encounter in their environements (their "reality")
> 
> source:www.selfdefenseresource.com/reality-based/articles/reality-based=overview.php
> 
> Are Reality based self defense systems really more practical than traditional martial arts in terms of training for self defense in likely scenarios, or are traditional martial arts just as practical as reality based self defense systems? All opinions appreciated.


 
As my Sanda sifu said (police/military sanda) Sanda is no better or worse than any other Chinese martial art it is just a quick way to learn how to hurt someone really badly.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 30, 2009)

I have no experience with Mr. Wagner, nor his "reality-based" martial arts and am therefor not in a position to comment on it one way or the other.

But I will say this much: I am of the opinion that those who feel traditional martial arts are somehow less effective, or lacking in usefulness, have never experienced true traditional martial arts.  Maybe they've had a poor instructor or something, I dunno.  But the traditional martial arts that I've had the privilege to study have some pretty nasty and effective stuff.  I swear, some of this stuff could drop a rhino...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 30, 2009)

Joab said:


> What is reality based self defense? According to Jim Wagner, "reality based" is defined as training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that practitioners are likely to encounter in their environements (their "reality")
> 
> source:www.selfdefenseresource.com/reality-based/articles/reality-based=overview.php
> 
> Are Reality based self defense systems really more practical than traditional martial arts in terms of training for self defense in likely scenarios, or are traditional martial arts just as practical as reality based self defense systems? All opinions appreciated.



Well, since they are designed to train for realistic modern scenarios, one would think, in theory, that the answer would be obvious, especially when figuring in the sport angle of many TMA's.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 30, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> I have no experience with Mr. Wagner, nor his "reality-based" martial arts and am therefor not in a position to comment on it one way or the other.
> 
> But I will say this much: I am of the opinion that those who feel traditional martial arts are somehow less effective, or lacking in usefulness, have never experienced true traditional martial arts.  Maybe they've had a poor instructor or something, I dunno.  But the traditional martial arts that I've had the privilege to study have some pretty nasty and effective stuff.  I swear, some of this stuff could drop a rhino...



Which traditional martial arts?  TMA is pretty much a catch all for everything from Tai Chi to Judo........


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 30, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> Traditional martial arts are less effective in that much of your training time may be spent on something you will never see on the street; however, the concept of falling and getting off the line of attack should be sound; so it aint a total waste of time. It just takes longer to get proficient.
> Sean



Again, much of it depends on the TMA in particular.

What RBSD systems do, is the same thing that MMA has done......RBSD is, in reality, a parallel of MMA in the sense that MMA took what was most useful from fighting sports, and combined them.

RBSD attempts to do the same thing for self-defense.....take what is most useful, and leave the rest......wait.....i've heard that somewhere before.....:yinyang:


----------



## Haze (Jun 30, 2009)

As long as you train for the reality or times that you live in TMA or RBSD should both serve you well for self defense. 

One needs to work the techniques of an art, regardless of the name we give it, against resisting opponents / would be attackers. I think most TMA schools that I have had contact with seems to be working drills with partners that are to compliant.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 30, 2009)

Haze said:


> As long as you train for the reality or times that you live in TMA or RBSD should both serve you well for self defense.
> 
> One needs to work the techniques of an art, regardless of the name we give it, against resisting opponents / would be attackers. I think most TMA schools that I have had contact with seems to be working drills with partners that are to compliant.



Too true.


----------



## geezer (Jun 30, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Again, much of it depends on the TMA in particular.
> 
> 
> RBSD attempts to do the same thing for self-defense.....take what is most useful, and leave the rest......wait.....i've heard that somewhere before.....:yinyang:



If that Yin-Yang is a reference to the concept of JKD, I'd say _well put!_ I really don't know much about RBSD, although one of my "traditional MA" instructors trained in it to test out his own skills. He came away feeling that his particular "traditional" art held up pretty well to the test. But it's also sort of reality based, in a way. In fact, every true martial discipline was once a form of RBSD for a certain place and certain time. Some translate to our times better than others.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 30, 2009)

I'd like to hear WHY folks are thinking traditional MA isn't effective out on the streets... and if it's not effective... what is? 
My own scant training in MA has helped saved my *** more than once "out there" and I've seen high rank belts kick *** in bars and in parking lots... this was all in the days before everyone had a camera of some sorts. 
Either way... let those who speak out against MA's effectiveness out on the streets go head to head, toe to toe with a bb of any art and let them talk afterwards about how effective it is or isn't.
Maybe a MA-ist won't do picture perfect techniques because of the changes that can happen in a "street-fight" and improvisation will be called upon but they've still more skill than the average non-MA-ist and thus would come out ahead.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 30, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Which traditional martial arts?  TMA is pretty much a catch all for everything from Tai Chi to Judo........



well, what I have experienced is Tibetan White Crane, Shaolin, Wing Chun, Chen Taiji, Danzan Ryu jujitsu, Judo, Bagua, Capoeira, and Tracy Kenpo (not sure if people would classify kenpo as "traditional").  I wouldn't say that I am an expert in any of this, some I've trained more deeply than others, some I've really only had the pleasure of meeting some very skilled proponents of.  And all of them have stuff that, when done by someone who really knows what he is doing, is downright frightening.

That's the thing, tho.  No matter what system you do, you need to train it properly and diligently.  No art holds such secrets that a brief introduction is all you need to fear no man.  Every single method, including Reality-Based martial arts, needs to be trained properly or else it is no good to you.  And that falls on each of us.  We are ultimately responsible for our own training, and need to be honest with ourselves about the quality of our efforts and the quality of the guidance we are receiving.  

A lot of traditional arts do not get taught, nor trained, with high quality.  But if RBMA were trained poorly then it also would be just as useless as a TMA that was trained poorly.

In my opinion, it seems that RBMA is really more about having the proper attitude in training, and using high quality training methods.  Any traditional art could be (and often is) trained with this in mind, and be just as effective.  

It's not so much the system, as it is the quality of training and the quality of instruction.


----------



## David43515 (Jun 30, 2009)

Crane, I think you hit the nail on the head. The vast majority of styles can be frighteningly effective if you train them with that in mind. And two different schools or instructors can teach the same art so differently that one could be made almost useless while another could be turning out fighting machines.


----------



## bowser666 (Jun 30, 2009)

Unless the are proven systems and from reputable backgrounds, i would be leery of any RBSD.  Remember one persons reality is another persons fantasy. Try what works and use it. Plain and simple.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 1, 2009)

Hi,

To get back to the original question, RBSD is often presented as separate from martial arts training in that RBSD is primarily concerned with the pre-fight, the ability to handle the initial assault, and the post-fight adrenaline dump. 

Deane Lawler, in his seminars, says that RBSD is designed to get you through the first 3 to 10 seconds of an assault, and then your martial arts training comes in. In fact, other than a few concepts, few RBSD teachers actually teach much in the way of techniques (as you would get in a martial art class), focusing more on drills and the mindset required to survive. It is almost assumed that most people who attend such classes are already experienced in some form of combative system, so there is no need to go over old ground again and again. This is how you can get certified in teaching an RBSD system with only a weekend course (in some cases), as it is principles and drills, not techniques.

Within our schools, we take the traditional techniques of our art, and in our street application, we utilise RBDS teaching methods. So the two methodologies are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are designed to work together quite well. If you have trained a more traditional system for years, you will find that pretty much any RBSD teaching will be quite applicable to your art. The difference is in the strength each gives you... Many "traditional" systems start their techniques when there is a clearly defined attack (and attacker); in other words, when the fight has already started. This can leave you open to being sucker-punched, or simply not aware of when you are already in a fight (by not being aware of the pre-fight ritual and keys of posture/body language etc). RBSD, on the other hand, teaches you very well how to recognise such pre-fight changes, and very good drills for adrenaline-training, however often lacks the technical syllabus of a full martial art.


----------



## tallgeese (Jul 1, 2009)

The RBSD is kind of a buzz word these days, but it's more helpful to think of it as a mindset behind training and a group of training methodologies than a specific system.  That being said, there are a few very good programs that are highly effective.

The bulk of it's usefulness is in the streamlined sets of skills involved and the abbreviated teaching methods used to get there.  There is no kata to translate bunkai from, any movements used are trained "as is" so the student is always aware of what they are practicing.

Many, if not all, are based around a set of principles rather than a long syllabus of techniques.  This make the process more goal oriented with less empahsis on the "how" of each movement and more on the effects of fullfilling principle.

There is also usually a higher level of contact agaist more resistive opponants sooner.  This translates well into more effective combatants quicker.  More well rounded?  Probably not, but effective against a wide variety of assult with less options to choose from.

One thing I think if very useful in defining many of the good programs out there like this, is that the idea isn't defensive really.  There is a sense that upon attack you become the predator.  You're not really defending much past surviving the inital encounter, you're becoming the attacker.  That mindset is critical in any encounter.

You do need to be careful, anyone can throw the term out there.  But they are worth checking out, go and see if the pass the reality test.  Are what they working against sensible?  Are the movements simple and can you actually see them work vs. nearly fully reistive attackers?  Do they deal with the possibility of multiple attackers, knives, guns?  

Naturally, all this won't be on day one, but you should see it coming from people who've been there awhile.

Is it better that TMA?  Depends on what you're wanting out of it and your training experiance.  I've seen a movement or two that I've stolen and called research out of a program or two.  And I've borrowed a drill or two more along the way, and I've done ma's for quite some time.

There's definatly something worthwhile in a good program.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 1, 2009)

geezer said:


> In fact, every true martial discipline was once a form of RBSD for a certain place and certain time. Some translate to our times better than others.



Ain't that the truth.
In ninpo, we train tai sabaki using a sword attack. Other weapons are used as well, but a sword is traditional. It is unlikely in the extreme that I will ever encounter someone on the street holding a sword. But replace the sword with a baseball bat, and suddenly it's reality based training.

As Chris said, the pre-fight rituals and telltale signs have changed. But the underlying principles are still the same. And while it might be problematic for me to walk around with a hanbo, the techniques can easily be adapted to a walking stick. Imo there is very little in TMA that cannot be easily adapted to modern scenarios, if the TMA in question is one that was built on reality in another time or place.


----------



## MJS (Jul 1, 2009)

Joab said:


> What is reality based self defense? According to Jim Wagner, "reality based" is defined as training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that practitioners are likely to encounter in their environements (their "reality")
> 
> source:www.selfdefenseresource.com/reality-based/articles/reality-based=overview.php
> 
> Are Reality based self defense systems really more practical than traditional martial arts in terms of training for self defense in likely scenarios, or are traditional martial arts just as practical as reality based self defense systems? All opinions appreciated.


 
IMHO, much of what is seen in the TMAs (Traditional Martial Arts) is the exact same thing that we'd see in the RBSD arts.  The main difference is the way the material is applied.  In other words, instead of standing in a static stance, throwing punches and kicks, the RBSD guys will be more 'alive' for lack of better words, and add in movement, ie: focus pads, etc.  The KISS principle, IMO, is used much more in RBSD.  Short, simple effective moves.

Now, this isn't to say that every TMA out there is static, no aliveness, resistance, etc.  However, there are many out there, who seem to frown upon adding anything 'new' to what they're doing.  New....well, I said there was nothing new, but I also said that there are different methods of application.   

Just like MMA training, I think that alot of the RBSD stuff can fit in just fine with any TMA.  Its just a matter of the TMAist having an open mind.


----------



## MJS (Jul 1, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi,
> 
> To get back to the original question, RBSD is often presented as separate from martial arts training in that RBSD is primarily concerned with the pre-fight, the ability to handle the initial assault, and the post-fight adrenaline dump.
> 
> ...


 
This post is fantastic!!  So much of what was said in here is, IMO, one of the things that seperates the TMAs from the RBSD.  I think alot of times, people look at the techs. and say, "Well, I do the same thing in my TMA" and they probably do, but as I said, not only is application different, but as you said in the beginning...so much more than just tech. is covered.  This is what I meant when I said that the TMA guys need to keep an open mind.  Be willing to look at the before and after side of the fight, scenario training, etc


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 1, 2009)

Just a note.....Traditional Martial Arts were the RBSDs of their time.

Also understand that there are a few RSBDs today that are simply sales and no different than calling something "Combat". We all want to be dangerous and be dangerous quickly so we go for an RSBD over a TMA. But with that said I will be one of the first to tell you there are a lot of TMA today that are pretty ineffective but that is not due to something lacking in the TMA it has more to do with the teacher and the students. If it "IS" actually taught traditionally they are rather effective. But very few are taught traditionally anymore. This is what bugs me most about posts comparing TMA, MMA and RSBD is that we look at it on the surface and look at what it has become and then some (not all) go off touting the superiority over TMAs and they know nothing of the reality of it.

All I can say is that in the version Sanda of Sanda taught to the Police and Military in China that there are striking drills and lots of them as well as other drills, Tuishou and physical training but there is also Qinna and Shuaijiao taught so techniques are taught as are some combinations. It also is teaching the same exact basic principle as TCMA as it applies to powerful strikes; it is just not calling it Qi. And the training itself is not all that different from a TCMA of the past either, although you will not find forms in Sanda.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 1, 2009)

RBSD can go take a flying leap!  It's a damn industry buzzword to sell to the ignorant.  TMA works, has worked and will continue to work because nobody's grown an extra arm, leg or evolved some freaky new joint so they can throw a punch from some crazy angle.  The same Kyokushin and Seido I learned was effective decades ago and will be for the rest of time ... if you are fighting humans that is.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 1, 2009)

For zombie attacks, the kenjutsu guys are probably at an advantage.






I am learning a couple of basic cuts, but given that I only have a boken, it would not do much good I suppose.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 1, 2009)

geezer said:


> If that Yin-Yang is a reference to the concept of JKD, I'd say _well put!_ I really don't know much about RBSD, although one of my "traditional MA" instructors trained in it to test out his own skills. He came away feeling that his particular "traditional" art held up pretty well to the test. But it's also sort of reality based, in a way. In fact, every true martial discipline was once a form of RBSD for a certain place and certain time. Some translate to our times better than others.



You caught the reference as thrown.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 1, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> I'd like to hear WHY folks are thinking traditional MA isn't effective out on the streets... and if it's not effective... what is?
> My own scant training in MA has helped saved my *** more than once "out there" and I've seen high rank belts kick *** in bars and in parking lots... this was all in the days before everyone had a camera of some sorts.
> Either way... let those who speak out against MA's effectiveness out on the streets go head to head, toe to toe with a bb of any art and let them talk afterwards about how effective it is or isn't.
> Maybe a MA-ist won't do picture perfect techniques because of the changes that can happen in a "street-fight" and improvisation will be called upon but they've still more skill than the average non-MA-ist and thus would come out ahead.



The first question is WHICH TMA.........we can't really believe that all are equally effective.  Stories of it's origins aside, I don't really buy the notion that Tai Chi is going to be an effective self-defense style.

The issue of RBSD isn't particular techniques........it's skipping the formality of many TMA's and taking the techniques they find most useful in specific reality situations that are most likely to be encountered (in their view)..........so the issue isn't really the techniques at all, but in their application and focus of training.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 1, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> In my opinion, it seems that RBMA is really more about having the proper attitude in training, and using high quality training methods.  Any traditional art could be (and often is) trained with this in mind, and be just as effective.
> 
> It's not so much the system, as it is the quality of training and the quality of instruction.


 You hit the nail on the head......and the techniques used in RBMA, much like MMA, are taken from various TMA's.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 1, 2009)

bowser666 said:


> Unless the are proven systems and from reputable backgrounds, i would be leery of any RBSD.  Remember one persons reality is another persons fantasy. Try what works and use it. Plain and simple.


 Of course the same rule applies with TMA's as well......Caveat emptor!


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 1, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Stories of it's origins aside, I don't really buy the notion that Tai Chi is going to be an effective self-defense style.


 
I can only say that I believe you have never experienced or witnessed good taiji.  

Most of what is practiced nowadays as taiji is a watered-down form of exercise which it was never intended to be.  It is decidedly NOT a martial art.

But again, as it was originally intended as a traditional martial art, practiced properly, with proper instruction and full understanding, taiji can be devastating.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 1, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I don't really buy the notion that Tai Chi is going to be an effective self-defense style.


 
And I will happily let you believe that... it would only be to any "real" taijiquan persons advantage to have all underestimated them. Be they Chen, Yang, Wu, Zhaobao, Sun, Hao or any other. 

Bet you think it is all slow too.


----------



## blindsage (Jul 1, 2009)

I find the distinction between TMA and RBSD to be kind of a red herring a lot of the time. Most of the RBSD instructors I've seen or heard of (not all, but most) show their TMA credentials to demonstrate how "qualified" they are to teach self-defense. IMO, RBSD really should just come down to wheter you are practicing whatever you learn in a context that takes into account what you are likely to encounter on the street i.e. scenario training with resistant opponents. But if you only focus on that there's a lot you will miss out on as well skill wise, as any well trained taiji person could tell you


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 1, 2009)

Most everyone made excellent points here... almot making it impossible to add to. 

I feel that much of the buzz or perceived difference lies in the presentation... there isnt any nuclear secrets just different approaches...    nothing new and nothing secret about it...same old drink, different concoction... 

I feel that what the "reality based" camps are attempting to do is more of a martial/military approach similar to what one would find in boot camp or in military school and training and thats immersion... This was/is definately appealing post 9/11...  Its presented and executed in a more unconventional fashion which appeals to govt and state agencies look for the "newest and best training" as well as the average joe looking for some perceived "special ops skills".... The GWOT has kicked up many rocks and allowed for many creatures and entities to emerge and crawl into the game...  

where as... 

Conventional or traditional camps build the core from the ground up by instilling respect and character and the whole shebang without trying to appeal to certain types or exude some sort of "combat effectiveness"... The GWOT changed nothing aside from possible implementation of newer tools and even more rustic or arhcaic ones...  

Essentially its the same thing just different approach and training.... 

One side will mold you into something by building you up in stages over time where the other will toss you in and expect you to get it done and get it done right in a short period of time.... like the military: they dont have 5 years to make someone into a combat swimmer they have a few months t train in hopes to survive thioer specialty aside from the actual experience... on the other hand an olympic swimmer has years to train and hone thier skills in hopes to win gold... 

One is about dynamic immersion for immediate effectiveness in a combative environment and the other is about growing and developing in stages to take on life in general and combat if need be... 

essentially they are of the same caliber just geared and wired different...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 1, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> And I will happily let you believe that... it would only be to any "real" taijiquan persons advantage to have all underestimated them. Be they Chen, Yang, Wu, Zhaobao, Sun, Hao or any other.
> 
> Bet you think it is all slow too.


 Makes no difference......99% of those who claim they are practioners of Tai Chi solely aren't remotely combat effective by any measure.......the fact that there are some 'highly effective' skills 'hidden in the forms' doesn't really alter the reality of the art as it exists today...............it's like taking Taebo and thinking you're learning how to fight. 



Now, if someone EXTRACTS those forms, applies them in a high stress environment against resisting opponents.....THEN you've done what we're talking about..........throwing up forms on the sidewalk to stretch out...not quite the same thing.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 1, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Makes no difference......99% of those who claim they are practioners of Tai Chi solely aren't remotely combat effective by any measure.......the fact that there are some 'highly effective' skills 'hidden in the forms' doesn't really alter the reality of the art as it exists today...............it's like taking Taebo and thinking you're learning how to fight.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if someone EXTRACTS those forms, applies them in a high stress environment against resisting opponents.....THEN you've done what we're talking about..........throwing up forms on the sidewalk to stretch out...not quite the same thing.


 
Although I would agree that 99% of all taiji you see today is not an MA it is that 1% you have to watch and please continue believing this. And I still bet you think it is all slow motion. And if you extract them and do with them what you want then they are not taiji. Taiji as a martial art takes a lot of time to learn. But then many RSBD and Sports practitioners tend to judge things based on their training so your response is not surprising

I will end with this, the martial artist that most impresses my Sanda Sifu is my taiji Sifu.


----------



## Joab (Jul 1, 2009)

Thanks for all your responses. I will say Sgt. Mac's critique of tai chi is a bit narrow in a way. While I don't know a lot about tai chi, I know a popular and well regarded RBSD system, John Perkins Ki Chuan Do, or "Guided Chaos" or "Attack Proof" system does utilize tai chi in its system primarily for helping their students relax and work on their balance. While it may be true (I wouldn't know) that tai chi is not particularly effective on the street, it does help with the overall goal of becoming a good martial artist by helping people relax and work on their balance. And it should be noted that John Perkins is a former New York City police officer with over a hundred documented victories in close quarters combat while making arrests, including prevailing over at six at one time in one arrest!

Not all RBSD systems sprang up after 9-11.  Professor Bradley J. Steiner's American Combato has been around since 1975. And his traditional martial arts background is impressive, 8th degree black belt in kenpo karate, two black belts in two different forms of ju jitsu, a blackbelt in tae-kwon-do, and those are just off the top of my head. Some are experts in TMA, and taken what they have learned to put together a system that is simple, practical and effective for street self defense. 

There is of course a lot of good in traditional martial arts, and I'm sure you could become an effective defender of yourself in many various traditional martial arts. RBSD tries to simplify things and utilize gross body movements instead of fine motor movements, believing that under stress gross body movements are more effective. They like to use non martial arts looking stances so the opponent doesn't think you are prepared to defend yourself, keeping the element of surprise, which is of course advantageous.  Typically RBSD systems look for moves that work in close quarters, eschewing high kicks for example that need a lot of space. And they tend to encourage the use of weapons if at all possible, makeshift weapons if a conventional weapon is not available.

Or at least that is what I know from American Combato primarily, and to a much lesser extent Guided Chaos. And as many posters have expressed, it all depends upon what your looking for, there is good in all martial arts systems, the key is what you are trying to achieve. Thanks again for all your posts, they were illuminating.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 1, 2009)

Most certainly,  viable RBSD camps were in place well before 9/11...However post 9/11 and GWOT the approach changed and more "elite training secrets" camps emerged... allot of bidding for .gov contracts and contracts ending or declassified...  every one with thier own secret potion....    SCARS was pre 9/11 but highly "modernized" for the time and threats based on his experience in Nam...Marc Macyoung has been around a long while... Lets not forget Frank Cucci... Theres also Paul Vunyak and Michael Echanis...   all pre 9/11-GWOT ....     

9/11 not only changed  "hotzone" focus but "street" focus on a civilian level as well as private and corporate security....


----------



## blindsage (Jul 1, 2009)

Joab said:


> Typically RBSD systems look for moves that work in close quarters, eschewing high kicks for example that need a lot of space.


I'm not a big fan of high kicks for self-defense, but I know I could kick most people in the head in close quarters (a lot of Kyokushin knock outs happen this way) and I'm far, far, far from alone in this.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 1, 2009)

There aren't many around -- but if you see someone who really did learn the combative side of tai chi, not fanciful explanations of the movements or the new-age "health benefits only" versions... It'll work. It's just not a quickly learned skill; it ranks, in my opinion, with aikido in that respect. Both can be very effective -- even amazing sometimes! -- in the hands of a properly trained person, or either can be a new age crap ball in other hands.


----------



## tallgeese (Jul 1, 2009)

One of the major drawbacks I've seen in this regard is that I might be in a fight tonight, that's a far cry from the years that some of these more esoteric arts might take to develop one to a combat ready state.

There is nothing wrong with dedicating ones self to the study and practice of one of them, but if your goal is self defense then there are more direct paths to that goal.  Nor do the two have to be mutually exclusive but I'd say that it's obvious that there can be defensive tactics that are effective and taught in less time than the arts mentioned above.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 2, 2009)

There have ben a couple of ideas thown around here, which I would like to comment on if I may...

*Xue Sheng said "Just a note.....Traditional Martial Arts were the RBSDs of their time."*
I would actually argue against this a bit. I would say that original combative arts were, in the main, the cutting edge of combative technology at their time... but that is not the same as saying they were the RBSD's of their time. The main difference between them is what I have heard refered to as "the human element", in other words, the who, when, where of the situation. This is where RBSD systems excel, for the modern world.

The human element in a classical system (and here I am refering to the older arts, not those created in the last century or so. I mean no offence to more recent creations, but we'll deal with them another time) is very different to the human element found in (predominantly) Western countries today. The types of attacks you may encounter are very different, the types of weapons you may face are very different, the types of clothing you and your opponent may be wearing are very different. To take this from a Japanese Martial Art point of view (my background), a particular art may teach you certain strikes and grips whichare designed to utilise an opponents armour, or, for slightly later arts, their Kimono. These grips may not be available if your attacker is wearing a t-shirt, for instance, and there may be many more strikes available, or better striking weapons for you to use. And defending against a sword versus defending against a handgun give you very different situations.

TMA's have been developed for a variety of reasons, sometimes for practical use on the battlefield, sometimes for "street" type protection, sometimes for bodyguarding-type skills... but also sometimes simply for fitness (an exercise program), or spiritual enlightenment (rather than physical violence).

So while TMAs were the cutting edge, they were not really RBSD in the way the term is used today.

*Omar B said "RBSD can go take a flying leap! It's a damn industry buzzword to sell to the ignorant. TMA works, has worked and will continue to work because nobody's grown an extra arm, leg or evolved some freaky new joint so they can throw a punch from some crazy angle. The same Kyokushin and Seido I learned was effective decades ago and will be for the rest of time ... if you are fighting humans that is."*

This has been a common theme in this thread, basically "people haven't changed, hitting the throat worked in the old days, if you hit someone in the throat now it'll still work!". This takes us back to the human element. But there's a bit more to it than that.

Essentially, I see the argument that TMA training will not necessarily give you self-protection skills as coming down to training methods and an understanding of the changing nature of the violence that may be encountered. The changing violence aspect is the aforementioned human element, and that was covered earlier. But, to recap, the warriors and violent criminals of old Japan, China, and Korea attacked and fought in a different way based on various factors, including each of the above mentioned, as well as simple cultural differences (for example, in the West, we are taught  [culturally conditioned] to not kick someone in a fight, as it is considered "dirty" fighting - the same cultural stigma seems to be missing from Eastern countries). This leads to very different methods of movement, which may or may not be culturally translatable.

So while people haven't (physically) changed much (there is some difference, if we want to get technical, in aspect such as height, and, to a lesser degree, ratio of limbs to trunk), there has been quite a lot of change in the cultural and social aspects of humans as a whole. We are now all very aware of Western Hands (boxing), whereas in older Japanese, Chinese, and Korean systems it wouldn't exist. This is of course just one example, but I'm sure you see where I am going with it.

Without understanding the changes in the violence which you may encounter, as well as understanding the changes which have occured from a social level (assault laws being a great example of this... I have lost track of how many times I have seen a TMA demo of a defence against a simple attack, say a double lapel grab, that is so overkill that the defender would serve large amounts of jail time whereas the attacker would be considered the victim), then your TMA system will not truly prepare you for todays encounters. No matter how much hitting someones throat works, if it lands you in jail, or if it requires a particular body weapon due to it originally being used against an armoured opponent and is therefore slow, obvious, or simply not the best weapon for the job, then TMA does have a fair bit to answer for when claims are leveled at them for being less-than effective.

The other side of TMA not being effective comes from the training methods themselves. I am not going to say which methods are good, which are great, and which need to be re-examined, as that is not my place in anything but my own school, but I'm sure you can understand from what I have already said that only training old-style movements with no regard for the effects of adrenaline, no understanding of the effect of your actions, and thinking this will work can be a little self-delusional.

That is, of course, easily rectified if the above understandings are present. And that is where RBSD comes in (when done properly).


----------



## Joab (Jul 2, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I'm not a big fan of high kicks for self-defense, but I know I could kick most people in the head in close quarters (a lot of Kyokushin knock outs happen this way) and I'm far, far, far from alone in this.


 
Well, American Combato has no kicks higher than the testicles, and really the side kick to the knee is the one most practiced. I'm impressed you can kick high in close quarters, I can't, nor can I kick high at all.


----------



## MJS (Jul 2, 2009)

I'm sure there've been topics on what I'm about to say, but its worth saying again here.  I always find it interesting, how some tend to frown upon anything that involves change.  This is what I was referring to earlier, when I spoke of keeping an open mind.  As I said in my first post, we really don't see anything new, per se, in RBSD arts, however, the application of things differs.  

Look at the world around us....everything changes.  The way cars are built, the way a house is built, the way we get water, the way we get medical attention, you name it, and its probably changed.  I don't need to hike a few miles to the nearest stream to fill a bucket with water, hike back, boil the water and then drink it.  No, instead, I simply walk into the kitchen, turn on the water, place the glass under, fill it, and drink.   Its still water, but the method of getting it has changed.  

Our mode of transportation has changed, as I dont see many horses on the public streets.  Instead I see cars, of various shapes, sizes, makes and models.  

Just looking in the paper, you see stories about violence.  Was violence present way back when?  I'm sure it was.  Was the method of that violence executed in the same fashion that it is today?  I doubt it.  Its still violence, just like people back then, had the same amount of arms and legs as people do today.  But I find it hard, very hard to believe that methods of executing that violence have not changed.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 2, 2009)

*Change equals strife.*  So I say embrace that change and enjoy it!  Now how does that pertain to the way you train?  Well I am not saying run out and learn an RBSD system if you do not want to but instead look at how they do thing's as a chance to be more educated yourself in the Martial Sciences.  Just like if you practice a RBSD system or MMA, etc. look at how TMA's work and the principles and concepts that they use.  Who knows you may learn, grow and change!   






  In the end we all need to be flexible!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 2, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> There aren't many around -- but if you see someone who really did learn the combative side of tai chi, not fanciful explanations of the movements or the new-age "health benefits only" versions... It'll work. It's just not a quickly learned skill; it ranks, in my opinion, with aikido in that respect. Both can be very effective -- even amazing sometimes! -- in the hands of a properly trained person, or either can be a new age crap ball in other hands.



Yes, but the point is that 99% of the Tai Chi taught is useless for the people implementing in actual combat.......that there is an esoteric root system that select individuals have deciphered and harnassed as a super-deadly fighting style doesn't really alter the fact that Tai Chi, AS TAUGHT, isn't......that is my point.......not that hundreds of years ago what became Tai Chi wasn't some super-martial art.


----------



## pete (Jul 2, 2009)

Gotta disagree here... 100% of the Tai Chi that I DO, that MY TEACHER DOES, and what MY STUDENTS LEARN is both USEFUL & based in REALITY!  

And, a lot of what i see passing as Reality Based systems is nothing but Fantasy.  Guess it depends on what is REAL in your existence...

pete.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 2, 2009)

tallgeese said:


> One of the major drawbacks I've seen in this regard is that I might be in a fight tonight, that's a far cry from the years that some of these more esoteric arts might take to develop one to a combat ready state.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with dedicating ones self to the study and practice of one of them, but if your goal is self defense then there are more direct paths to that goal. Nor do the two have to be mutually exclusive but I'd say that it's obvious that there can be defensive tactics that are effective and taught in less time than the arts mentioned above.


 
yes, but when taught and trained properly, traditional arts also have many things that are quite useful RIGHT NOW.  While it may take several to many years to learn the complete system and reach a level of genuine mastery, there is plenty that works and is useful after only a short period of training.  It's just that the longer you work on it, it gets even better.  Even more potential is to be realized down the road, for something that works very well in the short term as well.  Traditional arts do have a lot to offer for a direct and short path for self defense.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 2, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Yes, but the point is that 99% of the Tai Chi taught is useless for the people implementing in actual combat.......that there is an esoteric root system that select individuals have deciphered and harnassed as a super-deadly fighting style doesn't really alter the fact that Tai Chi, AS TAUGHT, isn't......that is my point.......not that hundreds of years ago what became Tai Chi wasn't some super-martial art.


 

It's really not something from hundreds of years ago.  It's really right now.  There are currently many people who have the skills and knowledge to use taiji very effectively as a fighting art.  This is not something that has been lost to history.

Nobody disputes that most people doing taiji today are doing it as a form of exercise, and are decidedly NOT doing it as a fighting art.  That is very clear to everyone.  But just because most people do not practice the art to it's intended potential, does not mean that the art itself is lacking.  It just means that most of the people who do it are lacking in their training.  And for most of these people, it is a deliberate choice, to only focus on the exercise and health aspects of it.  This is something often sought out be older folks who are looking for a gentle form of exercise.  It's deliberate on their part, and they are people who have no interest in the fighting aspects.

But the fighting aspects do live on, and are in the hands of some very capable people.  Unfortunately, these people do not dwell on every street corner and are not accessible to everybody.  But that's just life.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 2, 2009)

pete said:


> Gotta disagree here... 100% of the Tai Chi that I DO, that MY TEACHER DOES, and what MY STUDENTS LEARN is both USEFUL & based in REALITY!
> 
> And, a lot of what i see passing as Reality Based systems is nothing but Fantasy.  Guess it depends on what is REAL in your existence...
> 
> pete.


 Guess it does........the devil is in the details.




I didn't intend to fire up the Tai Chi practioners.....so my apologies to Tai Chi and it's practioners......the last thing I want is some little lady practicing her forms kicking my *** the next time i'm in the park.............:btg:


----------



## pete (Jul 2, 2009)

no offense taken, we've considered the source.

good luck coping your fear of parks, ladies, and other realities...

pete.


----------



## Joab (Jul 2, 2009)

Thanks again fro all your illuminating posts. RBSD systems have worked well for me and my goals, but they arn't for everybody. Having worked in security for 15 years including work as a bouncer, close quarters, no nonsense, simple, practical martial arts is what I was looking for and what I found. They have kept me alive over the years, and for that I am very grateful to the fine teachers and students who have helped me along the way. Again, it all depends upon what your looking for. I got something out of Tae-Kwon-Do too, more of a TMA than a RBSD, but all of it has helped me on my journey, I haven't regretted any time spent learning any of it, it's all been beneficial.


----------



## Shinobi Teikiatsu (Jul 2, 2009)

I think it's a fool who believes that a certain martial art can't help you in the street. Truthfully speaking, playing football could probably do you at least a little bit of good if you're ever in a skirmish (if you're a pretty fast runner or a good tackler, plus punting your attacker across the street will PROBABLY allow you to walk away)

I think I'm going to have to agree with the earlier posts that RBSD is more of a way of thinking about your training, rather than a system itself.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 2, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I didn't intend to fire up the Tai Chi practioners.....so my apologies to Tai Chi and it's practioners......the last thing I want is some little lady practicing her forms kicking my *** the next time i'm in the park.............:btg:


 
In my case, I'm not riled up by it, and neither am I surprised by the attitude that many people have toward the art.  But I did see an opportunity to interject and give a different perspective.  If you've never experienced quality taiji, then it's not surprising that you would doubt its viability.


----------



## Joab (Jul 3, 2009)

Shinobi Teikiatsu said:


> I think it's a fool who believes that a certain martial art can't help you in the street. Truthfully speaking, playing football could probably do you at least a little bit of good if you're ever in a skirmish (if you're a pretty fast runner or a good tackler, plus punting your attacker across the street will PROBABLY allow you to walk away)
> 
> Joab: I played football for two years, it might help you tackle your opponent, perhaps run away and evade, forget about the punt, but it won't help out a whole lot in a self defense scenario.
> 
> I think I'm going to have to agree with the earlier posts that RBSD is more of a way of thinking about your training, rather than a system itself.


 
This is rather ridiculous. Go to www.americancombato.com click on "cirriculum" and you will find for every belt level very much  a system that was painstakingly put together by Professor Bradley J. Steiner, Shiian, or originator of the system. It might be true that RBSD itself is not a system, but there certainly are systems that are RBSD.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 3, 2009)

Hi Joab,

I would not actually define your Combato system as an RBSD system, in that it teaches a technical curriculuum (like all other martial art systems), it features a belt ranking systems (like many other martial art systems), and features Asian titles and names (like many modern eclectic martial art systems, which is honestly what this is).

RBSD, as stated, is more a way of approaching your training to prepare for the realities of a real violent encounter (NOTE: Not by giving you techniques to deal with the attacks, although there is often one or two unique movements to each system, but rather by having very confrontational drills and exercises designed to generate the effects of an assault). This does not mean that your system, or indeed, any system, modern, ancient, or undecided is not equipped to handle a real assault, just that the definition of RBSD does not apply here.

My school, for instance, is not RBSD. I have, however, attended a number of RBSD workshops and seminars (and, as I'm writing this, I recieved an e-mail invite to another in a few months), and we integrate aspects of their training philosophy into our schools... just not completely. After all, our students come to us for a Martial Art experience, not an RBSD one. And that's an important thing to remember.

So, if I may, your comment about the claim being "ridiculous" is a little out itself. I did follow your suggestion and visit your schools site, including checking out the "cirriculum" section (just a friendly word of advice, don't know if you are in a position to affect this or not, but a little proof-reading wouldn't go astray. The use of terms such as "Shinan", which I have never encountered, as opposed to "Shihan", which I have, throws up big question marks, not to mention the odd naming of the system itself), and this simply showed all the hallmarks of a modern, eclectic martial art system, not an RBSD.


----------



## Joab (Jul 3, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi Joab,
> 
> I would not actually define your Combato system as an RBSD system, in that it teaches a technical curriculuum (like all other martial art systems), it features a belt ranking systems (like many other martial art systems), and features Asian titles and names (like many modern eclectic martial art systems, which is honestly what this is).
> 
> ...


 
I'll write and ask the founder (Can't seem to spell "shihan" right it seems) and ask him. I have used the term RBSD in emails to Professor Steiner when writing about his system, American Combato, and he never corrected me, and I beleive he would. So I will ask and get back to you-Joab


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 3, 2009)

Joab said:


> I'll write and ask the founder (Can't seem to spell "shihan" right it seems) and ask him. I have used the term RBSD in emails to Professor Steiner when writing about his system, American Combato, and he never corrected me, and I beleive he would. So I will ask and get back to you-Joab



Thanks, Joab. 

I was mainly refering to the spelling of things like 'cirriculm' (instead of curriculum here) but the other terms could probably be looked at. And, for what it's worth, the error is on the website, not just your post.

As for your instructor not correcting you, that could be anything from him not feeling the distinction is big enough to warrant a correction, through y to him not understanding the difference well enough himself. In anycase, you are by your own claim still a beginner in your system, but you should realise that, although your system may be designed with modern assaults in mind, it is not what would be recognised as an RBSD system.


----------



## Guardian (Jul 3, 2009)

Allot of good response here and definitely gives the mind something to think on.

RBSDs are just another system out there to grab a hold of those who don't want to the TMAs or the MMAs and yet still want to be able to defend yourselfs if needed in my view.  They are good for those who want it quickly for specific purposes or situations that the need is here and now.


----------



## Joab (Jul 5, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi Joab,
> 
> I would not actually define your Combato system as an RBSD system, in that it teaches a technical curriculuum (like all other martial art systems), it features a belt ranking systems (like many other martial art systems), and features Asian titles and names (like many modern eclectic martial art systems, which is honestly what this is).
> 
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 5, 2009)

Joab said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Joab,
> ...


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 5, 2009)

Hi Joab,

No, I don't really have a reason to ask your instructor about his system. My point was simply that RBSD is defined by it's training methodologies (adrenaline-based drills, high levels of pressure testing, principles over techniques/curricilulums) and a focus on the pre-fight and surviving/handling the initial assault. From every piece of evidence given by yourself and the website you sited, that is not what you train in. That is not to denigrate yourself, your art, your instructors, or anythig else, it is more akin to pointing out that my friends VW is not a BMW, despite both being German cars. People will prefer one over the other, and there are benefits and drawbacks to both.

So while I appreciate the invite, the only issue woul be if you wanted to be training in what is defined as an RBDS system, and are not. And that would be an issue for yourself alone. As I said, this is in no way an indication that your system does not deal with realistic responces to realistic attacks, just that it is not an RBSD, rather it is a modern eclectic martial system.

For the record, I personally prefer the "martial system" methodology over the RBSD approach, as the martial system approach has much greater longevity for the student. You can spend years, if not decades getting an understanding of a martial system, while RBSD developed out of Military, Security, and LEO Training systems, where only a very limited amount of time could be afforded to give to the students/cadets/grunts/whatever - usually about 8 to 12 hours. Yep, hours. As a result, a very fast teaching method was required, and that gave us DefTac (Defensive Tactics) Systems, and RBSD is just a civilian use of the same teaching and training methodologies. But, of course, no RBSD system or DefTac system can compete with the depth of a martial system.

Tez, no you are not the only one with alarm bells, I had quite a few go off when looking over the site... but I figured that was not the debate we needed to have here at the moment. In essence, Joab's Instructors system is what it is, it may be great, it may be nonsense, but in the end, there is a fair degree of honesty over it's modern creation, so I'm not too worried. It's just not somewhere I would visit, that's all.

As for the intructors being refered to as "Professor", well, that is hardly new. I have seen it in a number of Filipino Systems, as well as being used by people such as Prof. Wally Jay (Small Circle Jujutsu, another modern system). But I do agree with questioning the idea of MMA being about self defence. To me, that simply shows a lack of understanding about what MMA actually is, and what it is designed for. And the habit of knocking something else down in order to make yourself look big, from a psychological point of view, just shows a lack of confidence in yourself (or your system, in this case).

I like your list of RBSD guys, most in particular Geoff Thompson. I would also add people such as Deane Lawler, Jim Wagner (to a degree, at least) Tony Blauer (with his SPEAR principle), and Richard Dmitri (Senshido, famous for what is possibly their only actual "technique", the Shredder... although anyone familiar with Classical Japanese systems will recognise the action as a re-interpretation of what is known in Ninjutsu circles as a Shako Ken). But to look at all these individuals, it becomes apparent that the main similarity is in the approach to preparing someone for a violent assault, not giving a lot of techniques, and their biggest difference is often only in the details (one may prefer a certain type of drill, others have a different preference, a slightly different cover taught in one system over another), but that is about all.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 5, 2009)

Good post Chris, tbh though the alarm bells were ringing more for the post than the website, saying you could write to the founder but as you weren't a student he probably wouldn't answer? also saying there's more to it but then not going into 'it'. It sounds too 'mystic' and 'secret methods' type of thing for me. I like things straight up with no hidden techniques only for initiates.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 5, 2009)

As do I, Tez, which is why I always endeavour to answer any question directed towards me here (or anywhere else, for that matter). I've seen a fair bit of "He told me, so I know, but I can't tell you because I'm forbidden... but it's true, he told me!" before, so I've learnt to just leave it at that. You honestly don't get anywhere pushing that kind of issue.


----------



## Shinobi Teikiatsu (Jul 5, 2009)

To think, my one little post sparked this whole thing. I'm going to have to ask though, hif this "professor" doesn't answer emails from non-students, how did he get students?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 5, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> As do I, Tez, which is why I always endeavour to answer any question directed towards me here (or anywhere else, for that matter). I've seen a fair bit of "He told me, so I know, but I can't tell you because I'm forbidden... but it's true, he told me!" before, so I've learnt to just leave it at that. You honestly don't get anywhere pushing that kind of issue.


 
Can you hit them instead? :ultracool

Joke!!


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 5, 2009)

My feeling is RBSD schools have their place. They do not emphasize correct technique like a martial arts school would. Nor do they push for having a large number of techniques to choose from. 

But, since they have alot more contact, expect you to mix it up, teach situational awareness, and have instruction on how to act and speak before the fist fly, then it has some very good points. 

Most martial arts schools do not sit down with the students and show them how to act on the street and be streetwise. How to detect when you are in a bad situation and how to keep your wits about you.

I've been in FOF and will soon be in another FOF class (with electric knives and simulation guns.) I like the ability to test what I've learned and see if I can keep on top of the situation BEFORE the fist fly as well as during and after.

A lot of the martial arts problems are McDojos, that is watered down martial arts. There is no reality in such schools. And that is why when they say alot of black belts get mopped up on the street is pretty much true. Great kicks and swift hands don't matter much if you are blindsided cause you didn't keep your situational awareness. And it&#8217;s even worse when your kicks aren&#8217;t great nor your hands swift. And a lot of black belts I&#8217;ve seen are in that category.

Deaf


----------



## MJS (Jul 5, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> My feeling is RBSD schools have their place. They do not emphasize correct technique like a martial arts school would.




I have no first hand knowledge of any RBSD schools/teachers, other than what I've read online or in books/mags, or heard from others, but if you'd be so kind as to clarify the above statement for me.  Reading this, I take it as they would say to someone learning how to punch, "This is what the punch looks like, go ahead and do it" vs. what a MA school would say, ie: "This is how the punch looks.  Make sure that you're hand is in this position....etc."


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 5, 2009)

MJS,

Most martial arts are more detail orientated on how things are done. We both know a punch can have the fist closed in certain ways to be more effective and safer. We both know the wrist has to be strong and rigid least one breaks their wrist. We both know not to punch with the smaller bones in the hand least they break. 

Not all that is explained in RBSD schools I've been to. And then there are the ways to do a punch. Lunging, skipping, (like JDK), reverse punch. Wither you draw the arm back or not, wither you throw your shoulder on through or use a weight shift to add power, wither you twist your wrist just as you strike, or if the hand is vertical or horizontal....

That kind of detail is missed alot in a RBSD school. That is part of why there is an 'art' in martial arts.

Deaf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 5, 2009)

Shinobi Teikiatsu said:


> I think it's a fool who believes that a certain martial art can't help you in the street. Truthfully speaking, playing football could probably do you at least a little bit of good if you're ever in a skirmish (if you're a pretty fast runner or a good tackler, plus punting your attacker across the street will PROBABLY allow you to walk away)
> 
> I think I'm going to have to agree with the earlier posts that RBSD is more of a way of thinking about your training, rather than a system itself.



Football would probably be of more use than some TMA's.......as many real fights have more in common with football than what i've seen in some dojos.....i.e. bodies slamming together in a violent and tumultuous manner.


----------



## MJS (Jul 5, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> MJS,
> 
> Most martial arts are more detail orientated on how things are done. We both know a punch can have the fist closed in certain ways to be more effective and safer. We both know the wrist has to be strong and rigid least one breaks their wrist. We both know not to punch with the smaller bones in the hand least they break.
> 
> ...


 
Well, like I said, my only experience with them is what I said in my post.  If what you're saying is true, then IMHO, that is setting the student up for failure.  It reminds me of the cardio kickboxing classes I used to see.  You'd have a bunch of people, many who have never set foot in a school or thrown a punch or kick, hitting and kicking bags, looking like total crap.  

Then again, I wonder if there're any RBSD schools that actually do take the time to make sure the correct method is being used to avoid injury.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 6, 2009)

Hi MJS,

I teach and train in a traditional system, and have attended a number of RBSD classes/workshops from different teachers, as have my fellow instructors, so I have a bit of experience in the differences between each. And Deaf Smith is quite right in his description of most RBSD systems/classes etc, in that the "technique" side is not emphasised. As I said in muy first post on this thread, it is often assumed that the majority of students at these classes are already at least somewhat experienced martial artists, so there is no need to go over how to punch. It is assumed that each student will often hve a method in place that works for them already.

The reason that this assumption is made is that RBSD systems are marketed towards the martial art community, not the general public, so the people to hear about them are far more likely to be experienced. The other reason is that they are targeting people who feel they are lacking something (usually to do with their confidence in handling a real assault) from their existing training. So, no, they don't cover such ground as "this is how you punch", as it is simply taking time away from the more essential aspects of the system being taught. And remember, these systems are training approaches more than anything else, so different arts should be able to adapt the drills to their own methods of moving quite easily.

If you walk into an RBSD class with no experience, then you may be in trouble. But, then, it's not designed for that. It would be similar to learning stunt driving, and having the instructor explain to you which is the accelerator, and which is the brake.

That said, I have encountered a few schools that take th time to teach proper striking their own way, but that is for the (very rare) long term student. These systems are not designed for long-term study, as opposed to TMA systems. And the majority of those "more complete" RBSD systems will still get ripped apart from a technical level by a TMA... by the RBSD guy will be better prepared for the chaos and confusion of violence.

Hope this helps clear things up a bit.


----------



## Joab (Jul 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Good post Chris, tbh though the alarm bells were ringing more for the post than the website, saying you could write to the founder but as you weren't a student he probably wouldn't answer? also saying there's more to it but then not going into 'it'. It sounds too 'mystic' and 'secret methods' type of thing for me. I like things straight up with no hidden techniques only for initiates.


 
I was surprised by Professor's Steiner's response, especially writing he wrote me back and explained what American Combato is because I was a former student, if , to be honest, briefly, only a few months. I can understand to a degree why he wouldn't want to be even indirectly in a forum like this (he hates debate for one thing) but not giving a definition to a non student, it puzzles me. His explanation was truly impressive, unfortunately I can't cut and paste it, as he didn't give me permission to do so. I can say I got a lot out of it even though I was taught by him for a short period of time. I believe he has a good system, Black Belt magazine believes he has a good system (it was ranked in the top ten of RBSD systems in the world one year, and featured second, right after Krav Maga) a lot of police agencies believe he has a good system, but it's only taught in Seattle and Phoenix unfortunately. I won't be writing a lot more about it in the future, as he doesn't seem to particularly care for this kind of forum.

There were no hidden techniques explained in this definition, it was very philosophical really, and he lists his curriculum in minute detail on his website and writes about it in detail in his online newsletter "Sword & Pen" available for free on his website. And that's about all I will ever write about his system.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 6, 2009)

Hi Joab,

I never said it wasn't a good system (quite the opposite, I believe), just that if we are attempting to find the defining difference between RBSD and "mainstream" martial systems, then this is not what would be defined as an RBSD system. it simply has too many hallmarks of the more mainstream systems, and little to no aspects of an RBSD one.

The idea of it being, as you put it, "very philosophical" with the curriculum written "in minute detail" all point toward a mainstream-type set-up. Now, I'm going to say this one last time, highlighted for emphasis: *This is not a bad thing!* The only thing that could make it a bad thing would be if you were after an RBSD system itself, and if you found yourself enjoying what was taught in this class, then I would say that is not what you were after.

Now, to get to the heart of the matter of this thread, I may remind you (and those reading right now) that you started this thread. And you started it with a question: What is the difference? Well, you've been answered by myself, and others here, based on our understanding and levels of experience (in my case, you are dealing with over 20 years of martial arts experience, and a few years more research before that. In addition to that, I am experienced in a number of RBSD systems, so I feel that my answers can be taken with a degree of weight), and you now seem to be asking for us to define a previous system you studied as an RBSD, although it certainly doesn't seem to be one? Would that be correct?

So my question would be, did you not like the answers you were given, or did they not match your beliefs? It seems that you are more concerned with believing that you have some training in a Reality Based Self Defence system than in actually knowing what the difference is... and I say that because if you were more concerned in knowing the difference, then the categorisation of your former instructors art wouldn't matter much. In the end, whether something is an RBSD or a TMA means very little. Basically, they are simply different approaches with different training methodologies and different emphasises, and you will gravitate towards one or the other. There is no better or worse, just better or worse suited to an individual.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 6, 2009)

Oh, and having a quick look through your post history gives quite an interesting picture. You seem to have visited this topic a number of times, including thread titles such as: "What Systems Train For Realistic Self Defence?", "All MA Systems Equally Good For Self Defence?", "Are All artial Art Systems Good?", and others. You also have threads like "Contact or No Contact", in which you point out that your Combato system has no contact allowed... now, if nothing else, that should definitively show this as not an RBSD system.

So, after constantly going back to this area, as well as a number of threads specifically based around a fearful mindset when dealing with violence "SO You're In Some Urban Hellhole...", "How Much Advantage Is A Knife?", and "What Kind Of Fighter Do You Fear Most?", I would ask that you join a school, find an instructor you trust and believe in, and gain the experience that should help you assuage these fears, or at least have the tools to explore them.

While I always enjoy a good debate, we are simply going over old ground here again and again. Should you have new questions, we will be more than happy to assist you, but for these same old ones, I recommend you simply look to your own history (don't even need to do a search, most of the answers will be already in threads you have started) and check the answers there. And if they are not enough, it may be that you are still simply lacking the experience to understand them. And that is simple enough to remedy.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 6, 2009)

Joab said:


> I was surprised by Professor's Steiner's response, especially writing he wrote me back and explained what American Combato is because I was a former student, if , to be honest, briefly, only a few months. I can understand to a degree why he wouldn't want to be even indirectly in a forum like this (he hates debate for one thing) but not giving a definition to a non student, it puzzles me. His explanation was truly impressive, unfortunately I can't cut and paste it, as he didn't give me permission to do so. I can say I got a lot out of it even though I was taught by him for a short period of time. I believe he has a good system, Black Belt magazine believes he has a good system (it was ranked in the top ten of RBSD systems in the world one year, and featured second, right after Krav Maga) a lot of police agencies believe he has a good system, but it's only taught in Seattle and Phoenix unfortunately. I won't be writing a lot more about it in the future, as he doesn't seem to particularly care for this kind of forum.
> 
> There were no hidden techniques explained in this definition, it was very philosophical really, and he lists his curriculum in minute detail on his website and writes about it in detail in his online newsletter "Sword & Pen" available for free on his website. And that's about all I will ever write about his system.


I don't know anything about what Steiner teaches other than what I've read here and on his website (which has a lot of words, but not a lot of information) -- but I want to address a couple points.

The whole "dislikes debate" is worrisome.  I'm not suggesting that he has to answer to every loon who writes, but at the same time, reasonable questions in a reasonable format and at an appropriate time should be fair game.  (Nor am I suggesting that he doesn't have the last say in the art he created!)  Instead, we're hearing from you that "he doesn't like internet forums" and "dislikes debate" and only answered you because you used to be a student.  That's just kind of cultish, and makes me a little nervous. 

Black Belt magazine ratings don't carry a whole lot of weight; it's kind of interesting to note how the advertisements seem to be linked to the amount of coverage in many issues...  I've never seen anything about how they establish those rankings, either.

Police training...  That's a whole different boat.  Lots of folks train cops, in various ways.  Some legit, some not.  Often, agencies or academies will bring in martial artists for various seminars, or units will bring someone in -- especially if someone in the unit or at the academy trains there.  That doesn't necessarily carry a lot of weight as proof; he doesn't list the units that have his manuals, or where he's taught, for example.

I'd really like to know what went into his development of American Combato/Jen-To-Dao.  His website just doesn't give much info... and most of the information I've found on him comes from bodybuilding, not martial arts?

Like I said -- I don't know much about what he teaches.  It might be incredible.  But what little I'm seeing here doesn't exactly build that impression.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 6, 2009)

There's a martial arts school up the road that teaches Combato and I wondered if it was the same thing, I couldn't find out but after Googling I found this. It says this guy invented Combato which was taught to Canadian and American police and military, is this the same thing as we've been discussing?
http://www.fighttimes.com/magazine/magazine.asp?article=330


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 6, 2009)

It all boils down to integrity...  and having an assertive purpose. Its about adaptability and change and a positive, endless flow. Both can accomplish that. 
I like to experience and understand both sides for what they are and I have done it for many years.   I have experienced mediocrity and inefficiency from both sides and neither one more than the other. I have also experienced superiority and efficiency in both sides.   
Both are more similar than they are different and realizing that brings a new outlook....     
There is an endless well of knowledge out there to be had... there is not enough time to get hung up on useless and senseless detail...  absorb and mantain whats useful and discard whats useless... adapt to change and flow with it...   
What I see missing from both sides is integrity and adaptability.... I had a rough time growing up and I walked out of many schools becuase they werent teaching what I needed... I also felt cheap if I ever accepted training that I knew was useless...so I did not.   Its up to the people instructing to make sure thier bases are covered but the responsibility is mutual as the ones seeking instruction should have thier bases coverd as well....  


Those that I train are taught from the ground up... experience or not. 
I do not beleive in mediocrity. I dont tolerate it and I train them not to tolerate it either. If somethings wrong or off...fix it or compensate... improvise...   dont make excuses or excuse poor execution...    

a punch is a punch...  this is true with many modern combatives... yet its incompetent in its underemphasizing its true nature and use...  Not all though...   This can be true with some traditional martial arts in thier overemphasizing style and technique behind it.      A punch is so much more...yet so much less...   

I believe and building the structure of the body and its base first....then establishing an axis or center point of rotation then rotating and projecting with your mass....   then we learn to form our extemeties into striking surfaces without forsaking or forgetting its principle foundation...  
A punch becomes a battering ram... a kick becomes a sledgehammer.... 
Here you are free to adapt and improvise but only under the basic principles that govern your mass and thiers... 

Many instructors and students alike forget about this once the get acclimated and experienced...  thier liberty extends beyond the boundaries of the original principle is was foundes and built upon... watered down with freedom.     


There is a negative on both sides and yet there is a positive....inherently and essentially similar or alike or akin... but diluted by freedom and liberty of expression....       It all  boils down to integrity and the discipline to retain the basic principles that governs all matter...    no matter the prowess or perception  if these principles do not govern your movements then you are just "punching" and "kicking" and existing in mediocrity.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 6, 2009)

_"Black Belt magazine believes he has a good system (it was ranked in the top ten of RBSD systems in the world one year, and featured second, right after Krav Maga)" _

Excuse me in advance if what I am about to say pisses anyone off but it is my experience.  I do read BB magazine and hold it to a certain level of accountability and integrity. I shadowed many of these "RBSD" camps for a few years and few of them held up.  One of these outfits was that of Jim Wagner. He was "top ranked instructor of the year and top ranked for new innovative blah blah"...  I read his credentials and he has trained with over 500 special ops, counter terrorist and police forces all over the world... Just an and overwhelmingly impresive resume...   I then found he had a certification program for fairly  cheap and could be accomplished in a weekend....   to good to be true...so I opted for the dvds he had to make sure I had done enough recon to decide.   

 Appalling...   Why???  watch the videos and come to your own conclusion...  Mine may be different but I know the difference between poo and chocolate.  
With a disgusted laugh all I could think of is that he would get me killed.  
Lesson learned, I no longer rely on ratings, resumes and accolades to calibrate whats effective and whats not....  Its a shame that it seems to be more about who you are than what you are really made of and translating that into motion....     Allot of resumes and refferals look outstanding...with endless experience and resources...   but in motion I see mediocrity.    To my standards that is unacceptable.... and In understand that most diamonds in my face are fake and I must dig through ugly rocks and coal to get the real thing...  most often there is no resume or refferal to speak of.


----------



## Joab (Jul 6, 2009)

So my question would be, did you not like the answers you were given, or did they not match your beliefs? It seems that you are more concerned with believing that you have some training in a Reality Based Self Defence system than in actually knowing what the difference is... and I say that because if you were more concerned in knowing the difference, then the categorisation of your former instructors art wouldn't matter much. In the end, whether something is an RBSD or a TMA means very little. Basically, they are simply different approaches with different training methodologies and different emphasises, and you will gravitate towards one or the other. There is no better or worse, just better or worse suited to an individual.[/quote]

To be honest, I never even heard of RBSD before or during the two times I went to Professor's Steiner's school. Some time after taking American Combato I read an article in Black Belt magazine which featured what they considered the top ten RBSD systems in the world, American Combato was featured second, right after Krav Maga, although the top ten weren't necessarily listed from one to ten in the article. (one of the very few times I ever bought the magazine) and later read American Combato referred to as a RBSD system in at least three different threads in various martial arts forums after I had taken it. 

I will go out out on a limb a bit and reveal Professor Steiner does believe his system is a RBSD system and a whole lot more than that. I really wish he would let me put the email on this thread, it was quite brilliant, beautifully written, carefully thought out, really a shame really...wish I could reveal the specifics...oh well.

Call it what you will, it is a system that works for me. I've been practicing the basics of it on my own for over ten years (The basics can get you very far if you get them down really well with this system.) At any rate, I have enjoyed this thread, learned a lot, appreciate your input. My belief is whatever works for you is the best system for you, be it RBSD or traditional. I have studied four different systems, and some things worked for me in all of them. It comes down to what works for you, makes sense to me. 

I think their were very good posts defining what RBSD is. I do believe there are well thought out systems within the RBSD camp, American Combato, SCARS, Guided Chaos, Krav Maga, MCMAP, and quite a few others I'm sure.

To answer your question, I think the definitions given regarding RBSD had some good points, but I don't agree that they arn't systems. I hope that answers your question, I'm not sure it does.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 6, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> The reason that this assumption is made is that RBSD systems are marketed towards the martial art community, not the general public, so the people to hear about them are far more likely to be experienced. The other reason is that they are targeting people who feel they are lacking something (usually to do with their confidence in handling a real assault) from their existing training. So, no, they don't cover such ground as "this is how you punch", as it is simply taking time away from the more essential aspects of the system being taught. And remember, these systems are training approaches more than anything else, so different arts should be able to adapt the drills to their own methods of moving quite easily.
> 
> If you walk into an RBSD class with no experience, then you may be in trouble. But, then, it's not designed for that. It would be similar to learning stunt driving, and having the instructor explain to you which is the accelerator, and which is the brake.
> 
> That said, I have encountered a few schools that take th time to teach proper striking their own way, but that is for the (very rare) long term student. These systems are not designed for long-term study, as opposed to TMA systems. And the majority of those "more complete" RBSD systems will still get ripped apart from a technical level by a TMA... by the RBSD guy will be better prepared for the chaos and confusion of violence.


 
You are right on Chris. The classes expect you to have some ability before you get there. And it's focused on the whole street continuum, from jaw-jaw to war-war. 

Almost all martial arts don't do much on the jaw-jaw part, nor how to use any environmental weapons or just plain dirty, low-down, sneaky things. We get in the dojo and bow to each other before we spar. No one tries to distract us or confuse us or get's their buddy to blindside us. No one in a dojo pulls a knife or gun instead of taking a 'stance', or smiles with a rock in their hidden fist. AND THEIR AIN'T NO WEIGHT OR HIGHT DIVISIONS!

We need to learn how to talk on the street. No, not jive talk, but you will find that even gang-bangers alot of times just need you to acknowledge their presence with a nod for them to leave you alone. Or how to de-escalate the situation with talk (Verbal Judo is a VERY good book guys!) And how to make them keep their distance when talking.

There are lots of things like that to learn. Things every growing boy and girl should know but mama never told them.

Deaf


----------



## Joab (Jul 7, 2009)

Actually Chris is not right, there are RBSD systems that teach you everything you need to know and you can enter them knowing nothing at all and they will teach you all you need. Chris my have it half right, there may be RBSD that is like he writes about, it's certainly not true of many a RBSD system. And Chris likes to engage in amateuer psychology, determinig through a few posts that I'm motivated by fear without having ever met me. I can see why Professor Steiner refuses to be involved in forums like this even indirectly. Martialtalk.com is better than most, but really practicing your art is a much better use of time. But Chris is right about one thing, I've devoted far too much time to this kind of topic, I'll leave it for awhile, their getting a little repetitious. Chris is probably an alright bloke, but he does tend to generalize a little too much.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 7, 2009)

What I said was that most RBSD systems do not have the technical side of things, and I stand by that. There are some schools that will take you from nothing to fighter (one very near me is run by a man by the name of Glenn Zwiers, a former instructor for our Military... but we're not getting into all that that entails). but that is not the regular RBSD format. Most RBSD groups teach specialised workshops, with regular classes held for only a few people (most simply will not handle the constant pressure testing and high-stress training). And actually, the type of class you're describing is the less-common in my experience. And, if you'll forgive me for saying so, it seems that my experience outweighs yours by quite a bit here (after all, you are the one asking the questions...).

As for the amateur psychology, well, by my count, about 23 of the threads you have started (out of 75 or so) would come under the category I have defined, that is a bit more than "a few posts", and is more than enough to give a pretty good understanding of where you are coming from, yes?

And, yes, I am generalising a fair bit here, but that is only following on from your thread (What is RBSD? Is it really better than TMA?), which is very general itself. I have, however, endeavoured to provide real and definate examples wherever possible in order to minimise generalisation. If I didn't provide enough, let me know.

All in all, though, Joab, I wish you nothing but the best in your training. But remember, you asked us what RBSD was, and when your (previous?) school didn't quite match up, you seem to have gotten a little upset by that. Again, from all accounts (both from yourself and the website you directed us to), American Combato is not what would be defined as an RBSD system, however, I have no problem with it being a modern martial system well-suited to dealing with modern threats. But no contact, focus on techniques over principles, not mention of pressure testing, no adrenaline training, all point towards not being an RBSD. That's all.


----------



## MJS (Jul 7, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi MJS,
> 
> I teach and train in a traditional system, and have attended a number of RBSD classes/workshops from different teachers, as have my fellow instructors, so I have a bit of experience in the differences between each. And Deaf Smith is quite right in his description of most RBSD systems/classes etc, in that the "technique" side is not emphasised. As I said in muy first post on this thread, it is often assumed that the majority of students at these classes are already at least somewhat experienced martial artists, so there is no need to go over how to punch. It is assumed that each student will often hve a method in place that works for them already.
> 
> ...


 
Good points and yes, this makes sense. Now that I think about it, a few months ago, I was watching a dvd set put out by Rich Dimitri. Good stuff, but the first thing that came to mind was that if a beginner to the arts, were to watch this, they'd be lost, due to the fact that he wasn't teaching techniques, per se, but instead, concepts and ideas, assuming the person watching, already had a MA background.

I just figured that there was at least a RBSD school that would take in a newbie, rather than someone with a solid MA background already.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 7, 2009)

Yeah, Richard's system (Senshido) is very typical of most RBSD systems in that it is drill and principle oriented, with very little in the way of technique. In fact, the main "technique" taught is really just a physical expression of a principle (Richard actually teaches this as a "principle", not a technique), and that is what he refers to as "The Shredder". Essentially, it is a close quarters defensive action comprised of a single or double handed clawing to the face in order to disorientate your opponent and allow you to escape or follow up with other techniques as appropriate.

Others like Tony Blauer have single concepts taught as techniques as well. Tony's is what he refers to as his SPEAR concept. This is a combination jam/offensive strive action. Deane Lawler in his R-SULT system has a similar movement, which is a combination cover/offensive strike action. There are then countless drills to explore these concepts and their applications, and this is where RBSD has it's place.

As for schools that teach people from word go, yes, they exist, but are not the main for RBSD, they instead belong much more firmly in the mainstream martial system grouping. These would include systems such as Krav Maga and MCMAP (although, to address Joab's take on things here, MCMAP is not RBSD either [nor Krav Maga, for that matter]. Both are originally Military systems, which is not RBSD, as Military requirements are very different from civilian self defence). As stated above, there is a group near me that I have had a number of training experiences with who teach from word go, but more commonly run specialist programs (which is the most common form of this type of school). Geoff Thompson, I believe runs his classes the same way, and there are training groups in most major cities (at least here in Australia).


----------



## Shinobi Teikiatsu (Jul 9, 2009)

Joab,

I'm going to have agree with Chris' stance that you got offended when we declared that your old school was not an RBSD system, and I'm going to have to say that your behavior towards Chris, who admittedly DOES have much more knowledge in the martial arts than you, was juvenile at best.

The important thing about your school, whatever it's classified as, is whether or not you walked away feeling you could handle yourself in a confrontation. For example, there is a school near my house that I've paid many visits to, and the banner in the front says "Kung Fu" which we know in the martial arts world is about as generic as a store named "Drug Store." However when you go inside and meet the instructor, he tells you that the students are training in Wing Chun, who he learned from and so on and so forth. All the students there seem very well equipped, as well. However, they chose to use the name "Kung Fu" since it was so generic that most people would know it, and thus would be more inclined to join.

Your "professor" could have used a similar tactic. Not saying he's a trickster or anything, but it is possible, what with the rise of interest in both the MMA and RBSD over the TMA, that he used RBSD as a ploy to lure in other people to join his class.

Again, I'm going to have to agree with Chris when he says that it seems more like a modern martial system with training geared towards modern situations, rather than RBSD in and of itself. Remember this, my school trains gun defense, knife attacks, and attacks with a bat, those are all things that are based in reality, and we train to defend ourselves from them, self defense. So, using those simple words, we could define our training as reality based self-defense, however it would not fit into the actually CONCEPT known as Reality Based Self-Defense.


----------

