# Reality Based Instructors



## MJS (Oct 29, 2003)

We are, during  the course of our discussion, talking about well known Martial Artists such as Bruce Lee, the Gracies/Machados, as well as many of the Kenpo Insts. that are out there.

There are, however, many others out there, that dont seem to be talked about as much.  This might be due to the fact that nobody knows about them, or that they just choose not to advertise themselves as much as some of the others do.

You have such people such as Sammy Franco, Peyton Quinn, Marc "Animal" Macyoung and Geoff Thompson.  Upon looking at the web sites of these individuals, they seem to pretty much teach a very simple, to the point system.  The one thing that I have noticed is that they dont seem to be bound by any traditions, such as the ones that you would find in some of the other arts.  Rather than teach fancy moves, they seem to be more focused on the reality of a street fight.  

Again, as I have said before, we all train for different reasons, so something like this, might not be for everybody.  But there are those people that are looking for something like this.  I'm not an authority of these people, but I have looked at their web sites, as well as purchased some books put out by them.

Just wanted to see what everyone else thought!

Mike


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 29, 2003)

Yes, Mike, I know what you mean. Many times people lead you to believe that they are studying for another reason but just check out all these forums on the net, they all talk about their techniques as working on the street. There is more talk about self defense techniques than tournament sparring or anything else for that matter. My only complaint is this......we are always hearing about the 'McDojos' on these forums but how about the 'Dojo Warriors'-those who fight in theory only and confine their only exploits to within the dojo. Now, don't get me wrong, that's all fine and good for we wouldn't want martial artists going out on the town looking for fights but if you wish to really know what works and what doesn't listen to those that have been their and done that. Just like tournament karate. Should I want some tips on today's tournament fighting I would humble myself and go to those who currently compete and win and learn from them. That is their forte and I respect that but half the time you ask certain people on these forums who are arguing what works in reality when was the last time they used their art on the street, they never answer you!  I think one can learn a lot from those martial artists that you mentioned in street survival and sometimes people seem to forget why its called the 'MARTIAL' arts! It's all about reality training-Street Survival!


----------



## ryanhall (Oct 29, 2003)

I've personally trained with Sammy Franco and Rich Dimitri.  They're both top notch when it comes to their field.  Very skilled and knowledgable.  Geoff Thompson has also been highly recommended to me by a few people, including Rich and Sammy.  

I've also trained in WW II combatives.  Basic, offensive, and brutal.  Good stuff.  Carl Cestari is probably the foremost instructor of the system.  Jim Grover (a.k.a. Kelley McCann) also teaches along similar lines, but adds some elements of Thai, boxing, etc.  

I personally feel that RBSD/combatives goes far beyond the scope of every marial arts school that I have ever seen.  The personal experience of the instructors (the ones that I have trained with) is evident in their teaching.  Both physical and psychological realms are covered very well--no fluff, no b.s., just to the point SD training.  

That said, I don't find anything wrong with martial arts training for other reasons, but it does bother me when MMA/trad ma instructors claim to teach real world self-defense, often without possessing an understanding of what it entails.


----------



## MJS (Oct 29, 2003)

Thanks for the great posts guys!   I hope that others continue to give their feedback as well.

Ryanhall- Yeah, Sammys stuff is awesome!!  I bought 2 of his books and was very impressed.  I'm sure he's great to train with in person as well.

Mike


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 30, 2003)

I first took up MA (Kung-fu) because I was skinny, little and I was just about everyone in my jr. high's token whipping boy. Having a stressful day? Take it out on Ralph! Got damned tired of it.  So I wasn't going to take it anymore. So I learned self defense for the real world. 
Later as the beauty and harmony that I found with my continual MA training and practices I was able to study the arts for the spiritual side and enhancing the inner knowledge of SELF.  Realizing my potential as a human being, as a martial artist. Something that continues to this day.
But reality is still there and while I learn beautiful moves, forms, movements and what not. I'll learn it if it will help enhance the SELF but I will not use it in a REAL fight. I'll get my butt kicked or killed. So as Bruce Lee taught about JKD: use what is useful and throw-away what is useless (paraphrasing). Which is what I do in a REAL fight.  
The harmonizing stuff I'll reserve for when I'm at home practicing and relaxing or working out.  But I will continue to learn techniques that will put away my real-life antagonist(s) quickly and effectively with minimal hurt to myself as possible.
Life's too short to let punks kick you around.


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Oct 30, 2003)

Hock Hochheim is another good instructor on realistic training
Bob


----------



## Mike Att (Oct 30, 2003)

I train under Ralph Grasso, who is an instructor under Cestari and I have found that the Cestari material blends and compliments very nicely with Sammy Franco's and Rich Dimitri's material.

In terms of Sammy Franco's stuff, I personally like his "First Strike" tape and "Widowmaker" (Webbing/Razing) programs the best.

I think Rich's stuff is great, as is Geoff Thompson's material.

I have not heard good things about Marc Macyoung and Tony Blauer's stuff is alright, but I find his material (SPEAR) too defensive and him way too boring.


----------



## hapki-bujutsu (Nov 3, 2003)

being a combat artist is hard. When I started teaching my own art my past instructors disowned me for diluting the arts. Half my students are police officers. I feel i am doing good. I have been in the martial arts for 26 years. All i did was take what i beleived to be the best of what i new and scale it down and mix it togeather. It started out as me and a friend and the next thing I new people where calling me at home asking for lessons. I never even sought out to be an instructor. One of my former teachers(a man i respected more then anything) called me said I was teaching people to be bullies and terrorist! Untill all martial artist stand togeather combat,sport,tradtional,internal. The martial arts will never be what it could be. We all have gifts. mine was fighting. Everthing I did I was bad at except fighting. I went threw a stage between 12 and 17 that that was all i did. what is wrong with me taking my odd gift and using it to help people? There are alot of good combat arts out there. Don't take what you here about them as word. Check them out for yourself.


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 3, 2003)

Hapki Bujutsu, keep up the good work. You're doing nothing wrong. I've been in the arts for over 30 years, my first kempo instructor was exactly like you and I learned much from him and still train with him 'til this day. I grew up hang'n on the streets with the guys & I, too learned some valuable lessons there. My current primary instructor has an extremely street-wise background supplemented by a carreer in law enforcement as I do. I take his training as gospel, because he not only talks the talk but he walks the walk. These are the people you want to study under if you can or at least one of their students. For they don't train on theory only, people like you have been there and done that-giving much credibility to what you teach and how you train.  Fine job if you ask me!  Respectfully submitted, Shihan Joe Shuras


----------



## crouton (Nov 4, 2003)

professor david james, an excellent realistic self defense instructor


----------



## hapki-bujutsu (Nov 4, 2003)

Thanks kara. You managed to say just what I needed to here.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 4, 2003)

What in an instructor's curriculum/system distinguishes it as either an 'artistic/traditional art' or a 'self defense art'?  Is it the testing environment, rank requirements, discussions on state penal/use of force laws...?  

I am a self defense focused martial artist with experience in FMA/Kenpo along with Military/LEO experience.  I like to blend the instruction to include the military/leo scenario training to give students a reference.  I think it helps them understand how each technique (whether hand to hand or dealing with verbal attacks, reporting to the police or where/when/how to run away) fits into a 'real' situation.  I am also rethinking the rank requirements to make it a requirement for students to know and explain/apply certain mental techniques/skills (report writing, Kim's game for environmental awareness...) as well as physical techniques.

Paul Martin


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 4, 2003)

Paul, Imho, you can teach a traditional art that is also totally self defense orientated. Technically, the term "traditional' just means something that has been around for a while and practiced by many, in other words, time proven and has a following. In the beginning a system like Kajukenbo or American Kenpo was not yet accepted as a traditional art but technically, at one time, by definition, neither was Shotokan, until it caught on and got some time under its belt. Tradition is just a 'test of time'. It's good you also teach the legalities of the use of force and how the student should express themselves (written reports) to the authorites in case of an incident. Students should be taught, like police, in the escalation and de-escalation or as we say the use of force continuem. Physically, contact is an important aspect of reality training. A boxer's reaction to a punch in the nose is a punch back, so you want to make sure your students will react the same way. And don't avoid grappling, some fights do go the ground whether you want them to or not. Sometimes, you may take it to the ground. For example: You clash with someone on the street who appears to be equal or superior to you with his hands, you suddenly drop down into a single or double leg takedown and quickly move into a choker/sleeper submission. What you did is you took him out of his realm and to another area, one you hope he is not as skillfull in but you are! Smart fighting. Let's face it, if you went up against a Korean kicking champion and you are an American Kenpo man you're not going to try to out kick him, you're going to move inside and work him over with your hands, right? Stamina is also needed for reality training but aerobics is only a part of it. Fighting is anerobic, so some type of interval training, wind sprints, whatever, have to be added. Aerobics alone won't do the job. Just look at the body of a long distance runner (aerobic) and compare it to a sprinter (anerobic). You need the strong, explosive endurance of the sprinter to win a good street fight. I'm sure much of what I hit on you already know with your background but maybe this will help re-enforce your beliefs. Respectfully, Shihan Joe Shuras


----------



## arnisador (Dec 20, 2003)

I did a Geoff Thompson book review:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=183127#post183127


----------



## clapping_tiger (Dec 20, 2003)

Tony Blauer is pretty good from what I heard. Although I have not trained with him, my instructor and another student at the school who is a police officer have, they are working on becoming certified as instructors in his program. And they have worked some of the material with us. It is pretty good stuff.


----------



## kenpo12 (Dec 22, 2003)

I'm always a bit suspect about "reality based" systems.  The reason is that most of the so-called reality based systems were made up or designed by people who trained in traditional systems to begin with.  For me no training system is real, training is training and real is real.  I think there are some systems that that are better for reality than others but as long as the techniques makes sense, the individiual is going to make their reality not the system.  
  I've seen some of Jeff Thompsons videos and I liked them and I'm sure many of the other people mentioned above have some great ideas and training methods.   I also agree with evaluation and evolution of techniques and training methods, but I also think that learning from a traditional system to start out with can be benificial before moving on "reality based" training.  



 :soapbox: 

P.S.  When I say traditional system, that includes Western Boxing, Judo, Jiu Jitsu (Japanese or BJJ), Karate, or any other other art that has been around and proved it's worth at one time or another.


----------



## TonyM. (Dec 22, 2003)

That was one of the most intelligent posts I've read in a while. Thanks.


----------



## MJS (Dec 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo12 _
> *I'm always a bit suspect about "reality based" systems.  The reason is that most of the so-called reality based systems were made up or designed by people who trained in traditional systems to begin with.  For me no training system is real, training is training and real is real.  I think there are some systems that that are better for reality than others but as long as the techniques makes sense, the individiual is going to make their reality not the system.
> I've seen some of Jeff Thompsons videos and I liked them and I'm sure many of the other people mentioned above have some great ideas and training methods.   I also agree with evaluation and evolution of techniques and training methods, but I also think that learning from a traditional system to start out with can be benificial before moving on "reality based" training.
> 
> ...



Good point!  I'm sure many of these guys have trained in other systems prior to coming up with their own brand of fighting.  Seems to me though, that they took out some of the stuff and kept the things that appear to be the most practical.  

Example- things they took out: Kata, fixed stances with little or no movement.

Things they kept or added:  Your most effective strikes such as elbows, knees.  Added better movement and aliveness.

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 22, 2003)

Karazenpo,

I was honestly asking for feedback with the question in the  last post.  I was not implying that 'traditional' automatically meant outmoded or unrealistic.

The benefits of traditional training can not be dismissed, and IMO essential to developing a solid base for reality application.  Focusing on discipline, athletic fitness, good moral conduct not to mention the classic technique aquisition formula of form, power, focus and speed all establish a solid foundation of mental and physical toughness and bearing.  

I guess the traditional school that I have in mind is the local TKD/Karate school that uses the Olympic certificates coaches/referees on it's advertising, competes in form and point tournaments and caters to the 'family' market exclusively.  

These types of schools pass on some of the finest personal development benefits of martial arts and make work outs fun for someone who might not go to a gym.

But I have rarely, if ever seen them have classes - not just lectures or mentionings during a class but classes, on environemntal awareness, local and state use of force laws, environmental/improvised tools, force continuum or any topics outside of technical perfection and athletic fitness to perform techniques under stressful conditions (sparring/self defense techniques).  

Using the solid base of 'traditional' training - within this context - is a good platform to include the other topics that would build it into a self defense based program.

Paul martin


----------



## kenpo12 (Dec 23, 2003)

> Seems to me though, that they took out some of the stuff and kept the things that appear to be the most practical.



MJS,

  But my point is that they kept in what seemed most practical for them.  There are alot of moves that may not seem practical to you but I may be able to use them successfully and that's part of my own journey in the martial arts.  But if someone else cuts down what they learned and then I cut down what I learned from them, pretty soon you have a system that doesn't have much left.  I know not all systems and styles are built the same but I like to have the ability to study a whole style and take out what's practical for me.  If I teach, I teach everything I was taught and let my student decide what works for them with some additional guidance from me.  I have nothing againse "reality based" arts but I think someone really needs to spend at least 5 years or so in a "traditional" system before they branch out and look to a reality based instructor.  That's just my two cents.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *My only complaint is this......we are always hearing about the 'McDojos' on these forums but how about the 'Dojo Warriors'-those who fight in theory only and confine their only exploits to within the dojo. Now, don't get me wrong, that's all fine and good for we wouldn't want martial artists going out on the town looking for fights but if you wish to really know what works and what doesn't listen to those that have been their and done that. Just like tournament karate. Should I want some tips on today's tournament fighting I would humble myself and go to those who currently compete and win and learn from them. That is their forte and I respect that but half the time you ask certain people on these forums who are arguing what works in reality when was the last time they used their art on the street, they never answer you!  I think one can learn a lot from those martial artists that you mentioned in street survival and sometimes people seem to forget why its called the 'MARTIAL' arts! It's all about reality training-Street Survival! *



I agree, but do not be fooled into thinking that what goes on inside a school's walls cannot be reality based. Its like saying that a life saving drug is not a good drug because it was only created and tested in a lab. A school is a "lab" for MA and having many dedicated and experienced MAist under one roof, can produce some deadly results.

7sm


----------



## MJS (Dec 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo12 _
> *MJS,
> 
> But my point is that they kept in what seemed most practical for them.  There are alot of moves that may not seem practical to you but I may be able to use them successfully and that's part of my own journey in the martial arts.  But if someone else cuts down what they learned and then I cut down what I learned from them, pretty soon you have a system that doesn't have much left.  I know not all systems and styles are built the same but I like to have the ability to study a whole style and take out what's practical for me.  If I teach, I teach everything I was taught and let my student decide what works for them with some additional guidance from me.  I have nothing againse "reality based" arts but I think someone really needs to spend at least 5 years or so in a "traditional" system before they branch out and look to a reality based instructor.  That's just my two cents. *



Very true.  We are all different, so yes, what might not work for one person, may work for another.  I guess it would have to be up the individual person.  I guess I was looking at it from a different point of view.  I have trained in Kenpo for 17yrs. so I was comparing the wide assortment of things here to what the RB insturctors seem to be teaching.  

As far as the teaching goes.  When I was teaching, I would of course teach the material as it was supposed to be taught.  However, if a student came up to me and had a question about something, I would not hesitate to show them a different or better way of doing something.  

IMO, I really dont think that a person needs to have prior training before they wanted to try a RB style.  If they are going to be crosstraining, such as Kenpo and BJJ, then yeah, I'd say, have a good understanding of Kenpo before you attempt another art.  But, if the RB style is going to be your sole art, then you'll already be learning all of the material that they (the Inst.)  thinks that you should know.

Mike


----------



## Gotkenpo? (Jan 13, 2004)

RBSD is so much more in depth than your traditional art IMO (in the ways of fighting...not tradition).  The instructors have much knowledge in the ways of street crime, dealing with the police after a fight, home security, etc.  They are not just fighters.  Everything i have seen that comes from RBSD beats out traditional systems by a long shot, and even though i study kenpo, i mix alot of RBSD with it, and i find that the RBSD gives me much more in a short time, than Kenpo does.  Kenpo provides me with the basics, and training partners, which is great however, the sparring is very unrealisitc, and i think that i am fortuante enough to have been in many fights before studying any form of fighting to know what will work and not work for ME.

Also alot of traditional instructors have been in few or no fights at all, and i do not believe that they should be telling their students that certain techniques will work, when tehy don't know that themselves.  The RBSD instructors have vast real world experience and they know how fights go down, and end, as well as the pre-fight stage, and awareness.  I also love the fact that they teach de-escalation techniques

But I'm sure there are RBSD hacks out there, just like there are many traditional hacks out there.  You just gotta find the right instructor, have the "real" state of mind, and work to achieve whatever goals you are striving for.


----------



## MJS (Jan 14, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Gotkenpo? _
> *RBSD is so much more in depth than your traditional art IMO (in the ways of fighting...not tradition).  The instructors have much knowledge in the ways of street crime, dealing with the police after a fight, home security, etc.  They are not just fighters.  Everything i have seen that comes from RBSD beats out traditional systems by a long shot, and even though i study kenpo, i mix alot of RBSD with it, and i find that the RBSD gives me much more in a short time, than Kenpo does.  Kenpo provides me with the basics, and training partners, which is great however, the sparring is very unrealisitc, and i think that i am fortuante enough to have been in many fights before studying any form of fighting to know what will work and not work for ME.
> 
> Also alot of traditional instructors have been in few or no fights at all, and i do not believe that they should be telling their students that certain techniques will work, when tehy don't know that themselves.  The RBSD instructors have vast real world experience and they know how fights go down, and end, as well as the pre-fight stage, and awareness.  I also love the fact that they teach de-escalation techniques
> ...



Very good post!!  Its nice to see another Kenpo student realize the pros and cons of both.

Mike


----------



## Gotkenpo? (Jan 15, 2004)

thanks MJS   From what you said about my post, i assume you think the same way as me, therefore, i to, am glad there is another kenpo practitioner out there that thinks this way 

peace.


----------



## MJS (Jan 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Gotkenpo? _
> *thanks MJS   From what you said about my post, i assume you think the same way as me, therefore, i to, am glad there is another kenpo practitioner out there that thinks this way
> 
> peace. *



You're quite welcome!:asian: 

Mike


----------



## The Hammer (Jan 19, 2004)

check out www.attackproof.com


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 20, 2004)

After seeing the marketing ploys my 1st instinct was a mixture of revulsion and a strong desire to make fun of it.

Yet, after reading a bit and trying to get through the marketing crap, some of it does make sense.

But because some of it makes sense, that doesn't mean that the style is credible or effective. 

I would have to check it out for myself before I could really make a decision as to whether it is crap or not.

Either way, I dislike their marketing tactic of "our style is superior to all others".

PAUL


----------



## Matt Bernius (Jan 20, 2004)

Let me weigh in as both a practitioner of Traditional Chinese Martial Arts and someone who has studied with a Blauer Coach. Additionally I've had the opportunity to see another Blauer Coach in action (more on that later).

A good RBSD is going to prepared someone to deal with a "normal" (if there is such a thing) street attack faster than your average martial art. Hands down, there is no question of this. Why?

1. RBSD systems typically contain far less techniques for a beginner to learn.
2. RBSD immediately teaches the emotional, psychological, and physiological aspects of a confrontation.
3. RBSD also begin with the model of an untrained/street trained attacker (not a martially trained attacker)

Those three aspects put them at a short term (and sometimes even a long term advantage over most martial arts). Why? Let me break each one down:

1. Less techniques: In Blauer's systems, you learn the S.P.E.A.R. (a centerline crashing technique using immovable arm principles), basic palm thrusts, elbows, rakes, knees and basic straight/front and roundhouse (Thai) kicks (all to the low line). And that's about all a beginner gets. While that may seem like a substandard arsenal, it's also all they practice. So they get really good at applying them fast.

2. This is a killer aspect. From the first class people are training in simulated confrontations. So they are learning how to sense that they are being engaged from a distance. They learn verbal defusing skills. They also learn how to pick up "pre contact cues" that help them to judge the intent of an attacker. And they also begin to get used to the adrenaline dump that happens at the beginning of a nonconsensual confrontation and how they can convert that to a tactical response. And that's critical and something that most martial artists don't train for (especially at early levels). The flat out truth is that if you are surprised, fine motor skills go out the window (and what are may martial arts responses predicated on? Fine motor skills). Much of Blauer's material is how you convert a flinch into a tactical response and from there access your full arsenal.

3. Most TMA train first against themselves and for other systems and attacker types at higher levels. The issue here is that the average attacker in the street will have no formal martial experience. And therefore their technique will not necessarily conform to the training context of a given system. Example, most beginning Wing Chun (and yes I do have experience with Wing Chun) Pak/Lap/Trapping drills are predicated off of a Wing Chun style center line punch. How many schools start people working these off of a boxer/street cross? Or a jab/cross combination? Not many that I've encountered in my travels. The RBSD student however starts dealing with haymakers and a more sloppy boxing style model from the beginning. Granted, if they got attacked by a Wing Chun man they might have some problems. But RBSD is all about scientifically playing the odds if you will.

Are the concepts of RBSD new? Hell no. They've been around since the dawn of time and are in most TMA systems. However what RBSD programs did was help bring these concepts to the forefront, give them names and better define them. They also crashed through some TMA dogma that had been built up over the years (that dogma btw, if you examined it closely, would often run counter to the base concepts of the system).

So does it RBSD work? I offer this parting example. I was attending a conference where a gun defense workshop was being put on. At the end of the workshop (where no real techniques were taught) a handful of participants were able to go up against a person who had a gun loaded with chalk rounds. The attacker would have this live gun against the persons stomach. The defender would have to disarm or stop the attacker before he/she was shot. I saw three people attempt this. The first two managed to clear the gun, but in grappling with the person the gun passed across their centers and they got shot (again the gun was loaded with Chalk rounds and it was clear where they were hit). The final participant was a Blauer trained coach. He successfully cleared the gun and took the attacker out (I should not that he almost had to be pulled off the attacker because in order to do this correctly he "threw the switch" if you will. The attacker was fine, but more than a little rattled). Now you could chalk (excuse the pun) this up to the quality of the individual, but he used text book Blauer principles to accomplish the task. In fact, with my limited experience with the S.P.E.A.R. system I was able to predict every step he took because it was so text book. 

It's one thing to see the founder of a system accomplish a task. It's something else to see one of his students live up to the systems claims.

As for you need experience in a Traditional MA before you can really practice a RBSD system... as others have already stated, that's a load of hooey. There are people in our PDR program who don't have a lick of traditional MA experience that could, in a self defense scenario, deal with many experienced TMA people that I've encounted. However, they would have a difficult time dealing with those TMA people in a sparring scenario. It all comes down to what you train for and why (as others have said). We TMA folks tend to split our time and attention. And that's fine. RBSD have only one focus.

Also, as others have stated RBSD can supliment TMA training and visa versa.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents...

- Matt


----------



## MJS (Jan 21, 2004)

Great post Matt!  Excellent job of breaking down all the fine points

Mike


----------



## Disco (Jan 21, 2004)

Matt,

Would you have any information on that chalk gun you referenced?

Could you elaborate a little on the people that tried unsuccessfully to do the gun disarm. What were they attempting to do that forced them into a grappling match?

Appriciate your reply.

:asian:


----------



## Matt Bernius (Jan 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Disco _
> *Matt,
> 
> Would you have any information on that chalk gun you referenced?
> ...



Sure, I'd be happy to. This workshop was at the "Super Summers" Martial Arts camp in 2002. The person administering the workshop was a Federal martial who had training rounds with him. My understanding was that they were chalk rounds (though I could be wrong about that). Either way they were being used in an actual pistol (I believe it was a 9mm semi-automatic, though again I could be wrong).

The scenario began with the defender facing the gunman. The gunman had the gun in his right hand on (or near) the person's stomach/center of mass level, one the defender's centerline. I don't believe the gunman had both hands on the gun, they might have. The gunman was wearing facial protection (as was the defender in case of a shot to the head).

There was a count given and then the defender could do "anything" they wanted to neutralize the attack. The gunman was not to fire unless "threatened" and at that point they were to do what they could to shoot the defender.

What happened in the first two cases is that the defender was able to clear the gun by checking/palm striking it out of the way (though it was still being held on to by the gun man). Then in both cases the defenders grabbed the gun with both hands and attempted to wrestle it out of the control of the gunman. Unfortunately the action of grabbing it with both hands naturally tends to bring an object to the center of the body. That combined with the wrestling for control that was going on caused the gun to swing multiple times across the defender's frame. On one of those passes the gunman pulled the trigger and the defenders were hit in the stomach or legs.

The Blauer coach took a different tact. He began his hands in a non-violent posture and with a (I'm going to use Bluaer terminology here) pattern interrupt distraction... he asked the gunman a question. While the gunman was momentarily processing the question, the coach cleared the gun off of his centerline. He then S.P.E.A.R.ed the gunman (basically a forward check to his center of gravity). With the gun still checked out side of his frame (because he was so on top of the gunman, the gunman's arm was prevented from returning by the coach's body mass) he began a Blender on the guy's face. The blender is a series of elbows that convert into rakes. It was at this point that the workshop organizer called the Blauer coach off. As I stated earlier it took a second or two for him to stop. The gunman WAS NOT hurt. However, because the coach was in full self defense mode (positively utilizing his adrenaline, etc.) he needed a moment or two to shift out of the attacking mindset.

Hope this helped. Note that the idea of checking vs. grappling with weapons isnt unique to Reality Based Self Defense. Most unarmed knife defense in Pekiti Tirsia Kali (for example) is predicated on checking the weapon arm and then attacks to the arm, body or head rather than attempting a disarm.

-	Matt


----------



## RobP (Jan 22, 2004)

"I'm always a bit suspect about "reality based" systems. The reason is that most of the so-called reality based systems were made up or designed by people who trained in traditional systems to begin with."

I think you hit the nail on the head. Once you get past the marketing-speak  and the "trademarks" most of it seems to be JJ-based scenario type work.  And I have to wonder when I read stuff like:

"The best part about it is that its easy to learn, any 4'5" 90lbs women can use it to kill a crazy biker rapist"

"The officer couldn't pull his gun, club, or mace and could not fight her off. She ended up tearing off half of his face and doing serious damage to one of his eyes." 

"We are all Soldiers. Life is our platoon, the streets our battlefield"


----------



## Disco (Jan 22, 2004)

Matt, thanks for the reply. Would love to get my hands on some of those training rounds. 

One of our Instructors has some training with the SPEAR system and also with the Peter Boatman (England - edged weapons) system. As with anything else in life, it's what the individual likes and feels confident in. What they and many other's call reality based training, and this is not meant to detract in any way, is just their effort in attempting to control a situation in a way that they perfer. Many Traditional arts, I hate using that term but you know what I mean, actually have very affective and brutal disarms. These techniques can only be walked thru because they call for some sort of limb destruction. It's surprising that when these people attempted disarms, that no wrist techniques were used. Again, thanks for the reply.

 :asian:


----------



## Matt Bernius (Jan 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by RobP _
> *"I'm always a bit suspect about "reality based" systems. The reason is that most of the so-called reality based systems were made up or designed by people who trained in traditional systems to begin with."
> 
> I think you hit the nail on the head. Once you get past the marketing-speak  and the "trademarks" most of it seems to be JJ-based scenario type work.*





> _Originally posted by Disco _
> *What they and many other's call reality based training, and this is not meant to detract in any way, is just their effort in attempting to control a situation in a way that they perfer. Many Traditional arts, I hate using that term but you know what I mean, actually have very affective and brutal disarms. These techniques can only be walked thru because they call for some sort of limb destruction. It's surprising that when these people attempted disarms, that no wrist techniques were used.*


Great quotesMy take, for what it's worth... I don't think most Reality Based Self Defense (RBSD) Instructors hide their previous training. Bluaer doesn't. And just about everything in a RBSD program exists in Traditional Systems.

But the problem is that many (note I did not say all) Traditional Systems also have a ton of Dogmatic beliefs that have built up over the years about the execution of their technqiues in self defense situations (such as in a suprise situation I'll be able to access fine targeting and motor control techniques). Or they've modified their mindset for to focus on other material (like point sparring). A good RBSD system breaks throught that dogma. Do some RBSD programs go to far in TMA basing? Yes. Definetely. But there are lots of traditional martial artists who "bury" their heads in the sand convinced that when attacked they would easily be able to rip out an attackers throat (or even catch and break a punching arm).

Btw, the people who failed at the disarms did try wrist techniques. The gunman simply resisted. And that was enough to start a wrestling situation.

Why didn't the wrist throws/locks work. To speculate, under the duress of the situation, they defenders were not able to correctly position for a wrist lock. So they might have gotten close. But they also did nothing to soften up the gunman to allow them the manipulation. Without any reason to go soft, the gunman simple reacted like anyone would and resisted. Que wrasslin' music.

- Matt


----------



## Disco (Jan 22, 2004)

Yes, the softening up aspect for the vast majority of people is a must. There are those that have the pure physical strength to just manipilate a limb (wrist - elbow), but it still is much easier to inflict some pain prior. One can assume that this did not happen when those people attempted the disarm.

I am not all that familiar with the training curriculum of RBSD systems. Can anyone elaborate on how long the training time frame is in comparison to standard martial arts schools?

 :asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 23, 2004)

I think most of us have seen Marco Lalas ads out there for a long time now. Has anyone ever trained with him personally or know someone who has?

:asian:


----------



## Black Bear (Jan 23, 2004)

I can't for a moment imagine why folks like Sammy Franco, Peyton Quinn, Marc "Animal" Macyoung, Richard Ryan, Tony Blauer, Richard Dimitri and Geoff Thompson would be considered "little known". They've been doing their thing for a long time, and are widely published and talked about. With the internet, there are no longer any secrets. Anyone who has really searched for realistic self-defense will have run into these guys. Even a hardcore traditionalist trying to shun contemporary systems will have run into them in magazines. 

Much of what they have developed is highly convergent and overlapping, which is telling. 

I spent about five years training under  the Blauer tactical system. Learned lots from it, and to be honest it made me throw out a lot of what I learned from TMA. I've dialogued online with Quinn, Dimitri, and Franco, and read some Geoff Thompson. All good folks. Oh, I can't say that I like them all personally, but they've made substantive contributions to keeping people safe. 

RBSD is better suited than TMA to short-term training, but many of the students, like MA students, train continually for a couple years or a few decades. 

As for Marco Lala, "Tettsu bushi", he's more in line with TMA or MMA. He's a big believer in cross-training, hard training. Main karate, boxing, and subwrestling. Very technical, smart guy. I have a stack of his tapes.


----------



## MJS (Jan 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Black Bear _
> *I can't for a moment imagine why folks like Sammy Franco, Peyton Quinn, Marc "Animal" Macyoung, Richard Ryan, Tony Blauer, Richard Dimitri and Geoff Thompson would be considered "little known". They've been doing their thing for a long time, and are widely published and talked about. With the internet, there are no longer any secrets. Anyone who has really searched for realistic self-defense will have run into these guys. Even a hardcore traditionalist trying to shun contemporary systems will have run into them in magazines.
> 
> Much of what they have developed is highly convergent and overlapping, which is telling.
> ...



Blackbear-First off, welcome to the forum.  I look forward to having some discussions with you!

As for not being so well known.  I do realize that theses guys have been around for a long time.  I have read about them online, I have some of their books and plan on getting a few of the tapes.  When I made that comment, I was basically referring to people who come from more of a TMA background rather than someone from a MMA, or crosstraining student.  I have been doing Kenpo for 17yrs, and that IMO, is a TMA, with ALOT of negativity when it comes to crosstraining.  I, thank God, have been crosstraining for a while now and am VERY happy with I am.  I train in Arnis to supplement my weapons, as well as a few other FMA.  I also do BJJ with a guy whos heavily into that as well as MMA.  When I want to get my best training, my best learning exp. and my best workout.....thats where I go.

Again, welcome to the forum.

Mike


----------



## Black Bear (Jan 24, 2004)

Thanks for the welcome here. I'm glad you're taking the time to cross-train and explore. I think that videos are a fine way of getting acquainted with other methodologies. Many TMA'ists spread ridiculous paranoia about videos. At the worst, a video may be useless, and you've lost $30. This is no worse than going to a month's worth of classes at a lousy studio, moneywise, and you've lost only one evening of your time, not eight. 

Restricting cross-training is a cultlike mind-control tactic of some TMA'ists. What is it they have to hide? As a member of the Straight Blast Gym, one of the ethical guidelines we abide by is that we never tell a student not to train at another studio. Rather than framing it as some sort of "loyalty" nonsense, we should be grateful for earnest students who are seeking the truth in combat. 

Wish you the best in your search, MJS.


----------



## Shiatsu (Jan 25, 2004)

So do you study at the Portland branch?  

Have you ever trained with Demi Barbito I think is his name.


----------



## Black Bear (Jan 25, 2004)

I do not have the good fortune to live near one of the established SBG locations in the Pacific NorthWest. I live in the Canadian Prairies, at the site of the first accredited SBG affiliate school in Canada. Matt has done seminars here, and our instructor goes down to SBG gatherings whenever he can, most recently the ISR Matrix certification in Florida. 

Our level of training is still a pale shadow of what goes on in Portland, but our grappling skills have shot through the roof, and hey--we're all glad to be on the journey. 

Demi Barbito is very knowledgeable in the area of self-defense, especially the application of JKD methodology to the use of modern street weapons such as handguns and OC spray. I have never trained with him, I know him through the internet and "videoland".


----------



## Shiatsu (Jan 25, 2004)

That's cool, I have e-mailed back and forth with Matt quite a few times, and I must say that I am very impressed.  I have only heard good things about Demi.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Black Bear _
> *Thanks for the welcome here. I'm glad you're taking the time to cross-train and explore. I think that videos are a fine way of getting acquainted with other methodologies. Many TMA'ists spread ridiculous paranoia about videos. At the worst, a video may be useless, and you've lost $30. This is no worse than going to a month's worth of classes at a lousy studio, moneywise, and you've lost only one evening of your time, not eight.
> 
> Restricting cross-training is a cultlike mind-control tactic of some TMA'ists. What is it they have to hide?
> *



Very good. Videos used as a "guide" are very much effective.

I think that the majority of people who have a problem with videos haven't reached a level where they can "see technique" in their minds yet. If they were then they would definately understand.

But the real controversy is that they say that one can't learn a "complete" system by video. The argument has merit, 
BUT,

1) most "video programs" advertise up to black belt. "We" all must "agree" that "black belt" is just the "beginning" of our real training, our journey in martial arts "mastery" is just beginning.

2) I would have to argue that someone at a "high level" can learn learn a "whole system" by video.   I don't beleive that  anyone has yet to date put a "complete" system on video.

3) I would a agree that a beginner would be hard pressed to reach a "high level" without prior martial art experience. BUT even a beginner CAN learn from a video.

:asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 25, 2004)

MJS and Black Bear,
You 2 keep on thinking the way you do and your "cup will remain half empty and not half full."

:asian:


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 25, 2004)

I use this idea when I instruct.

"Martial Arts" can be broken up 3 ways (you have to picture these all in a Vinn Diagram, with 3 overlapping circles:

1. Exhibition: Movie's, demos, pretty drills, forms, etc.
2. Competition: Sparring, kickboxing, NHB wrestling, etc.
3. Combat: Reality fighting.

They all overlap to a degree, and are related,  but they are not exactly the same. One important similarity to point out here is with "live training," or training against a resisting opponent. Competition arts are always training against a resisting opponent, even if they are constrained by rules. Combative systems NEED TO HAVE AN ELEMENT OF LIVE TRAINING as well, or else, they are not truely combat oriented. You may not be "competing" in combative arts when you are training with a partner, but you have to have some element where they resist or can move unpredictably to test the technique, because that is what you will face in "reality fighting".

Now tieing this in with how traditional arts fit in...

TMA often train for all 3; combat, competition, and exhibition. There is nothing wrong with TMA, but you have to know where the seperation is with what you are doing. Another thing  that you have to understand is the context in which your traditional art is coming from in terms of environment, and how it fits in with the environment that you live in today. Example - My Filipino styles originated from area's in the jungle where there was thick vegitation and not a lot of room to move, so my movements stay very compact and close quarters. This translated well to the alleyways and streets in the barangays (towns), where there are weapons available and S**T on the ground, so not a lot of room to do jumping kick, or submisson wrestling, for example. This then translates well to my current environment where I am mostly in urban or suburban streets or indoors, and there is almost always a weapon of opportunity available. This is different then TKD high kicking and flying kicking techniques, which (as the story goes) originated during a feudel time period in Korea where a flying sidekick would be used to knock someone off a horse, or a jump spin kick might be used to try to reach someone on a higher rock in mountainous terrein. In icy, flat Michigan here, I won't be doing any flying kicks to knock someone off a rock or horse. This does not make TKD ineffective, because there are other TKD techniques that are suitable to my environment; I just have to know which ones and how to seperate them.

Now, lets break down "combat" further. There are different ways to classify combat (same vinn type diagram):

1. Street Defense
     1a. Street defense as a LEO, or security.
2. Dueling defense
3. Battlefield defense

These 3 types of combat overlap, but are not the same. A civilian on the street has to defend themselves much differently then a soldier on the battlefield, for instance.

What pertains to the discussion regarding TMA is how dueling fits in. Dueling is combat, in the sense that I am talking about. If we meet at high noon to fight to the death with knives, then this is combat. Yet, it isn't the same as street survival, or battlefield survival; its a different animal. We have had dueling for as long as we could fight; Wild West and England did it with pistols, spain, france, etc., did it with rapiers, Filipinos did it with sticks, knives, short swords, etc., etc., etc. Every culture has a dueling past.

Most TMA focus on dueling. In many of my filipino styles, we are working on fighting single stick vs. single stick, or knife vs. knife, or sword and dagger vs. sword and dagger, or whatever, but just fighting one opponent. This isn't to be underestimated because dueling systems are a great way to improve your attributes and martial abilities. That is why TMA focus on dueling....because in the long term, that is how you will get better.

Yet, it is not the same as street or battlefield survival. Many RBSD systems have taken out these other elements that TMA have, focusing only on combat, and focusing only on street or battlefield survival. TMA does nto fall short...they can focus on these as well; but like knowing what environment your art is designed for, you need to know whether your combative techniques are for survival or dueling, so you can seperate it when needed.

I hope this insight was useful!

:asian:


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *I use this idea when I instruct.
> <snip>
> I hope this insight was useful!
> *



Paul,

You ought to write a book.  What you've outlined is excellent and give a lot to consider.  It's a keeper!

- Ceicei


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Ceicei _
> *Paul,
> 
> You ought to write a book.  What you've outlined is excellent and give a lot to consider.  It's a keeper!
> ...



 

wow...thanks!


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *I use this idea when I instruct.
> 
> "Martial Arts" can be broken up 3 ways (you have to picture these all in a Vinn Diagram, with 3 overlapping circles:
> ...




You have deep insight into combat. I would say that you are able to produce very good students who reflect you. That I am still trying to do. I have good students but they have yet to reflect me. And I don't beleive that I am a good reflection of my instructors either.

:asian:


----------



## Black Bear (Jan 25, 2004)

Have a second look. I really doubt that the majority of video series advertise "to black belt requirements". It's just that when someone does make such an irritating statement, it sticks in your memory. Take a current magazine. Count the ads for video programs that do and do not make this claim, I'm sure you'll find most do not. 

When you look at the sheer volume of videos done by folks like Yang Jwing-Ming and countless others, I'm sure that you'll find that somewhere, someone has put an entire system on video. All the forms, all the apps, all the... everything. 

That said, that doesn't mean I believe that a person could learn the entire system by having watched it on tape enough times, and trying to monkey it. 

It's just like basketball. Can you improve your basketball skills by watching pro games on tape? Somewhat, depends on a number of factors, mainly your pre-existing ability and capacity to learn. Can you learn to play basketball from watching pro games? No. Can I play like Kobe Bryant by watching Kobe Bryant enough times? Goodness no.


----------



## MJS (Jan 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *MJS and Black Bear,
> You 2 keep on thinking the way you do and your "cup will remain half empty and not half full."
> 
> :asian: *



And this is referring to what exactly????  If you're referring to the tapes, let me enlighten you on that.  I DO NOT use tapes as a sole learning source.  I have pleanty of people who I train under.  Do I have tapes? Yes.  I use them as a reference, and that is it.  

mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *And this is referring to what exactly????  If you're referring to the tapes, let me enlighten you on that.  I DO NOT use tapes as a sole learning source.  I have pleanty of people who I train under.  Do I have tapes? Yes.  I use them as a reference, and that is it.
> 
> mike *



Based on my opinion of your posts. It has nothing to do with videos in general.  My quote with the cup is referring to you being open to other arts rather than being close minded about the subject.

:asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Black Bear _
> *Have a second look. I really doubt that the majority of video series advertise "to black belt requirements". It's just that when someone does make such an irritating statement, it sticks in your memory. Take a current magazine. Count the ads for video programs that do and do not make this claim, I'm sure you'll find most do not.
> 
> When you look at the sheer volume of videos done by folks like Yang Jwing-Ming and countless others, I'm sure that you'll find that somewhere, someone has put an entire system on video. All the forms, all the apps, all the... everything.
> ...



I see videos as a healthy "guide" in ones journey.



:asian:


----------



## MJS (Jan 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Based on my opinion of your posts. It has nothing to do with videos in general.  My quote with the cup is referring to you being open to other arts rather than being close minded about the subject.
> 
> :asian: *



LOL!! Now thats a good one.  Being open to other styles? My friend, let me tell you, I am a HUGE advocate of cross training.  Look back at some of my other posts and you will see this.  I, unlike some of the other people in Kenpo, who seem to think that you dont need to crosstrain, am all for it, and constantly push for it.  I crosstrain in BJJ and Arnis.  Being a 1 dimensional fighter today, is, IMO, a very big mistake.  Being as well rounded as you can, by having a good balance of all of the ranges of fighting is the way to go.  Granted, there are some arts that I'm not crazy about, but I've ALWAYS said that there is something to be learned from all arts.  Just because it might not suit my needs, does not mean that someone else shouldnt take a look at it.

I prefer the RBMA over the TMA more, due to the fact that the RBMA are not limited by the things that the TMA are.  The RBMA tend to address fighting in a more realistic fashion.  They focus more on whats going to work rather than what might work.

Mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *LOL!! Now thats a good one.  Being open to other styles? My friend, let me tell you, I am a HUGE advocate of cross training.  Look back at some of my other posts and you will see this.  I, unlike some of the other people in Kenpo, who seem to think that you dont need to crosstrain, am all for it, and constantly push for it.  I crosstrain in BJJ and Arnis.  Being a 1 dimensional fighter today, is, IMO, a very big mistake.  Being as well rounded as you can, by having a good balance of all of the ranges of fighting is the way to go.  Granted, there are some arts that I'm not crazy about, but I've ALWAYS said that there is something to be learned from all arts.  Just because it might not suit my needs, does not mean that someone else shouldnt take a look at it.
> 
> I prefer the RBMA over the TMA more, due to the fact that the RBMA are not limited by the things that the TMA are.  The RBMA tend to address fighting in a more realistic fashion.  They focus more on whats going to work rather than what might work.
> ...



We think a like! Although I still have a few traditional instructors as well.

:asian:


----------



## Black Bear (Jan 26, 2004)

In terms of technique, there is a lot of overlap between RBSD and some TMA's. The training method makes a big difference as to whether a person will be able to use the skills well in managing an assaultive situation. 

And sadly, there are many, many TMA studios that just do stuff that does not contribute in the least to a person's ability to protect themselves. Now, I'm not saying that protecting yourself from violence is the most important thing in the world, in fact most people in North America can, if they're reasonably smart, go through their entire life without ever being seriously assaulted. (Yeah yeah, incidence/prevalence rates differ depending on who tells them, but it really depends on how "assault" is defined. If we use the legal definition, "common assault" or something, then we all get assaulted many times in our lives, but most of us never testify in support of charges.) *ahem* sorry, tangent. The point is, what is objectionable is that the instructors lead these people to believe that training with them is enhancing their safety. 

Right. 

I can walk into most martial art places, pretend to be shopping for a place, and get a free trial class, and in one evening I can tell that they are wasting their students' time.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Black Bear _
> *I can walk into most martial art places, pretend to be shopping for a place, and get a free trial class, and in one evening I can tell that they are wasting their students' time. *



Maybe waste your time.  But not for some of the others.  There are all different kinds of students.  Not all take MA for the sole purpose of self-defense.  I do know of some who view their training as a study of style (artistically).  Some are just "belt collectors" as their goal.

There was a thread somewhere buried in MT that discussed different types of students and their reasoning of studying martial arts.

- Ceicei


----------



## Black Bear (Jan 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Ceicei _
> *Maybe waste your time.  But not for some of the others.  There are all different kinds of students.  Not all take MA for the sole purpose of self-defense.  I do know of some who view their training as a study of style (artistically).  Some are just "belt collectors" as their goal.
> 
> There was a thread somewhere buried in MT that discussed different types of students and their reasoning of studying martial arts.
> ...


 Try a little harder to catch my meaning here. Belt collecting IS a waste of time. Yes, going to a McDojang will meet this person's goal, but their goal is itself a pretty pathetic exercise of their human potential. 

The other issue being that when I'm there for the night, I can tell that many of students are motivated by the goal of self-defense, even if--and get this, this is funny--even if some of them are reluctant to say that that is their goal. Yes, some martial art places make people feel embarrassed to say that they want to feel safer with respect to street violence. "It's an art, it's not for fighting" is often stated less as a disclaimer than a rebuke. It's ridiculous. 

Yes, there are many other REAL reasons why certain people want to do martial arts. But with the preposterous regimens of movement that are prescribed within some arts, you've got to know there are better ways to get in shape. I mean, I look at some of these instructors and think, where did YOU get your degree in exercise physiology? Or your personal trainer accreditation? Your only credential is that you have two IQ points above a napkin so that you can repeat the drills that your "master" taught to you. 

And there are better ways of meeting people. And there are better ways of achieving spiritual peace and wisdom. It's not a simple matter of "well they're not all in it for self-defense, so they're not necessarily wasting their time."


----------



## Black Bear (Jan 26, 2004)

Matt Bernius, which Blauer coach did you train with, what location? I worked out with PDR coaches Calen Paine and Robb Finlayson. I met Blauer in a couple seminars.


----------



## MJS (Jan 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *We think a like! Although I still have a few traditional instructors as well.
> 
> :asian: *



My appologies.  Guess I read the post wrong.:asian: :asian: 

mike


----------



## Mider1985 (Apr 17, 2010)

Does anyone recommend someone who does good Self Defense in L.A. ?


----------

