# Self-defense training methodology



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 6, 2011)

There has been much discussion on the differences between self-defense training methodology vs. sport training methodology. It isn't necessarily a _this_ vs. _that_ since an individual is free to pursue either as the focus of their personal training (as well as other reasons). The purpose of this thread is to go into the differences in training methodology, primarily focusing on the SD model. It isnt' to say one is better or superior to the other as each has a different focus and a different goal. So from the very beginning I want to make it clear that this isnt' an _'us_' vs. '_them_' thread. It isn't a _we're great_ and _you suck_ thread. It is only to discuss the SD training methodology in and of itself and how it differs from the sport model. 

For the sport-only instructor/practitioner that has only the focus or goal of sport competition, this thread will probably be of little value. And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front and what is desired.

For the sport only instructor/practitioner that wants to take a look at some SD options for possible inclusion into the training, this thread may hold some value for you.

For the SD only instructor/practitioner this would be a good thread to 'talk shop'.

For the purposes of this thread we can define self-defense as; _*the strategies, principles, tactics and techniques to defend oneself and/or loved ones from and attack which can cause bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death.

*_To begin with, most types of sport traing/competions revolve around some/most/all of the following considerations (be they TKD specific or a more general MMA).

Has a referee that enforces rules that both parties are required to abide by for the match.
The match is in a well-lit, dry, level, soft venue.
The opponent is unarmed.
The opponent is alone with no chance others will join in.
Some sort of safety gear is usually involved i.e. cup, mouth piece, gloves etc.
The opponent isn't trying to kill, maim or severely injure you.
You get a break in-between rounds to catch your breath, get a drink, get some advice or a pep talk.
If you've had enough, you can call a time out or tap out or simply quit and walk away.
There is often an incentive or reward for competing and/or winning such as rank advancement, a prize or maybe cash.
As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;


Situational awareness i.e. be aware of your surroundings.
Factors such as avoidance, evasion, escape and de-escalation need to be taken into consideration and trained for where appropriate.
Where there is no referee enforcing rules.
You are likely alone and/or at some sort of a place or position of disadvantage.
There are no rules.
There are no breaks, water, advice or anything to assist you.
The assault can occur in a parking lot, elevator, side street, your car, your bedroom, in the woods etc. It will likely occur in dim light conditions in any type of weather.
The attacker may be armed, and should be assumed to be armed.
The attacker may have friends more than willing to jump in.
There is no safety gear, but likely a plethora of person-unfriendly objects like broken glass, traffic, walls etc.
The attacker is looking to cause as much damage to you as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time possible.
To quit is to die (or something possibly worse i.e. rape, love one killed etc)
The goal is survival, the method is whatever it takes and is appropriate to the situation.
When looking at the difference in training methodologies, consider for the student and scenario;



Do they always 'go for the knock-out', for points, for a submission? Is so, they've limited there response options.
Do they have the option and/or opportunity to avoid or evade the potential conflice. Or escape or practice an verbal de-escalation skills?
Do they have the option of using an improvised weapon?
Does there opponent have the option of pulling a weapon (planned or improvised)?
Does there opponent have the option of having his buddies jump in to help?
Is the student required to observe certain rules?
Do your students always train inside the Dojang? Are opportunities provided to train inside a vehicle, stairs, elevator, hallway, small room, on grass, on asphalt, on a sloping or wet or slippery surface?
Do your students always where their uniform? Are they familar with what it would be like to be wearing tight clothing, foot wear, shorts and a T-shirt, a dress etc? Tt is one thing to be warmed up and stretched out and wearing loose clothing in the Dojang. It is quite another to try it in a dress in high heels, a pair of tight jeans, with a handful of groceries, a duty belt etc when you're not warmed up and stretched out.
Have they ever trained in dim light conditions?
Have they trained with visual/auditory distractions?
Do we always use a closed fist when striking at the head while wearing gloves and padded helmets? A blow to the head with a fist in a SD situation may not be the wisest tactic. The chance of injuring the hand on someones head is fairly substantial even with a well-placed strike. That is why boxer as an example tape their hands and wear gloves. I'll say it again; the chance of injuring your hand on someone's head/face is fairly substantial. If this occurs, depending on the severity of the injury, it could very well limit your options for further SD. Anyone here ever try to manipulate a weapon with broken knuckles? Or a cell phone, or car keys? I've broken a knuckle before and my range of motion in that hand was limited for an extended period of time. Given that manual dexterity is already limited while under duress, you've just made it even harder by busting a knuckle or two, or spraining your wrist on someone's face. And there is no way to know ahead of time whether or not he'll actually be knocked out.

This also doesn't touch on the possibility of blood borne pathogens the bad guy may be carrying. And now you've put yourself in a position of cutting your knuckles on his teeth or 'bleeding' him from the mouth or nose.
Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the state statutes of force and deadly force? In consideration like bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death? Subject factors? What a reasonable person would do in the same situation? Are you required to retreat in your state? Does your state have a 'Castle Doctrine'? An instructor doesn't need to be an attorney, but providing the resources for the student to check into it and touching on some of the topics during class time.

Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the O.O.D.A. loop? Fight or flight? Flinch resonse? Adrenaline responses such as tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of manual dexterity in the extremities? Considerations can include;
Even powerful strikes in non-lethal areas can fail.
A situation which starts out at less-than-lethal levels can quickly escalate.
A proper joint lock, at the appropriate time, 'can' immobilize even an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) even if strikes fail and if properly applied.
Be as patient as possible for the situation, look for openings.
The attack will probably take place at the most advantageous time to the attacker and the least advantageous to us. We may be tired, sick, distracted etc yet still be forced into a situation.
Some of these predators come in packs which backs them bold. And even being physically big isn't always a deterent.

Physical conditioning is also helpful during training, or at least encouraging it. Being physically fit can help us in several areas of a SD situation. It can also help if an injury has been sustained. 

That is hopefully a good start for consideration/discussion. Be safe.


----------



## puunui (Jun 6, 2011)

You have posted that same thing at least three or four times now.


----------



## Manny (Jun 6, 2011)

puunui said:


> You have posted that same thing at least three or four times now.



I think he is not, but even if you are right I will answer this tread.

Best wishes.

Manny


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 6, 2011)

puunui said:


> You have posted that same thing at least three or four times now.


 
This is correct. I have posted this in various threads but decided it was worth consolidating into one thread.

Do you have anything constructive and *on topic* to add to the discussion?  I've noticed several times that you have attempted to take threads off topic.  I would appreciate you constraining yourself to the subject of this thread i.e. *Self-defense training methodology* or not participating in the thread at all if you cannot.

Thank you.


----------



## puunui (Jun 6, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Do you have anything constructive and *on topic* to add to the discussion?  I've noticed several times that you have attempted to take threads off topic.  I would appreciate you constraining yourself to the subject of this thread i.e. *Self-defense training methodology* or not participating in the thread at all if you cannot.



Topics go off topic, that is just the way that it is on messages boards, where the discussion goes someplace else. In fact, in the three or four times you posted it, no doubt it was an off topic tangent on your part. But even saying that, I did try to stay on topic by asking you questions, which for whatever reason you chose not to answer. For example, your premise: 

>It is only to discuss the SD training methodology in and of itself and how 
>it differs from the sport model. For the sport-only instructor/practitioner 
>that has only the focus or goal of sport competition

I asked what would be an example of a "sport only instructor", because from my perspective, there are very few. I can only think of two personally, who are completely focused on competition, and they do not speak of self defense at all, do not accept white belts or beginners, only elite athletes with the ability or desire to make the national team. They do not award rank, the athletes do not wear dobok, and only concentrate on competition training. So we need to define exactly what you think is a "sport only" instructor or practitioner, if you wish to compare that to your "self defense training methodology."


----------



## puunui (Jun 6, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;
> 
> 
> There are no rules.





There are always rules. Part of self defense in my experience is that following the rules will often times prevent a situation from developing in the first place. 

Here is an example. I told this story before. I was once in a restaurant which turned into a nightclub after ten. There was a bachelor party which was being held for a Samoan husband to be. There were at least 40 samoan gentlemen in attendance. There were about five or so bouncers in the place as well. At some point, a couple of University of Hawaii football players came in to drink. I think they had already been drinking I think, because they were a little loud and obnoxious when they came in. You could feel the tension from that from the beginning, or at least I could. The night continued on, when one of the football players took his shirt off on the dance floor. Within two minutes of that, teams of five samoans all at once moved towards each of the five bouncers, while other groups of five moved towards two football players. Suddenly, one football got taken down to the ground, and when that happened, the groups of five all pinned all of the bounders up against the wall, while the others basically mobbed the two football players. One football player was trying to hide underneath a table near the dance floor, while the five samoans on him were lined up, taking turns and doing full force front kicks to the chest of that guy, just like you would see in a martial arts class. It wasn't chaos or random acts of violence, but rather a cold calculated planned attack, because someone violated the rules. 

At some point, they turned the lights on, I paid my bill and walked outside. As I stepped outside, cars of samoan males were still arriving to join in. 

This whole scene could have been avoided had the football players maintained the composure and politely went to have fun, without offending anyone. In Hawaii, taking one's shirt off is a definite signal that someone wants to fight and when that football player did that, he basically lit the fuse on his own demise. Good thing that guy didn't violate another rule by pulling out a weapon. Had he done that, he probably would have gotten killed that night. 

There are rules. There are always rules, especially on "the street". When someone is described as being "street wise" it usually means that they understand the rules, of the street.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 6, 2011)

puunui said:


> Topics go off topic, that is just the way that it is on messages boards, where the discussion goes someplace else.


 
Sigh...

You have had a chip on your shoulder for over a week and you have made it your mission to derail certain threads that I've either started, or participated in because of your chip.  While a thread may go off topic eventually, you try to get right in on the very next reply and immediately take it off topic or offer some sort of sarcastic jab.  That isn't thread drift, it is trolling.  Or you try to be the very next person after I've posted in a thread with a sarcastic remark or to misrepresent what I've posted.  And, if you are off-line when I've posted, you'll seach back several pages, looking for any post I've made and again, offer a sarcastic remark.  Then when I confront you on this, or ask you direct questions you whine and cry that I'm 'attacking you'.  

I have tried three times (two in posts and once via email) to offer you my hand in peace.  You have declined or simply not responded.  Therefore your motives on any reply are suspect.  Whereas I've tried to be as polite as possible, even when being direct with you.

Funny how you worry about breaking the joint of a bad guy because he might get arthritis 20 years from now and not like you when the weather gets cold but you don't mind disrespecting people on a discussion board.

The reason I have refrained from replying to you lately is because I don't find your posts to offer anything of value.  As of this post, I've had 34 different people comment to me that they find nothing of value in your posts either.  Specifically your alleged ATM story.  And that is actually 'cleaning up' their comments.  

So I'm going to ask you again, and with respect, to stay out of the thread as I don't want it derailed with your perpetual ping-ponging misdirection.  Unless you have something on topic and positive to contribute.  I can't make you of course.  But the more you try to ping-pong and derail the thread the more people will see you for what you really are (and a lot apparently have already from those confiding in me).

As a note to the other readers:  My apolgies for my directness with Puunui, but his antics and agenda have become very tiresome.  I don't want this thread to become bogged down like he's tried to do with other threads.

I've also asked the Mod to change this to the SD forum as it would be more appropriate there.  Thank you.


----------



## puunui (Jun 6, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Sigh...
> 
> You have had a chip on your shoulder for over a week and you have made it your mission to derail certain threads that I've either started, or participated in because of your chip.  While a thread may go off topic eventually, you try to get right in on the very next reply and immediately take it off topic or offer some sort of sarcastic jab.




How is asking you to define what is "sport only", which you wish to compare to self defense, doing all of that? You want a comparison to sport only, I am just asking you to define what is "sport only" for purposes of your comparison.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 6, 2011)

Admin note:

Thread moved to General Self Defense


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 6, 2011)

*Folks -- 

If you cannot play nice with someone, make use of the Ignore feature, please.  Skip the personal shots, skip the name calling, and just ignore the person who sets you off.  Because if you can't do that --  you're cruising towards having the Staff will help you ignore them.  I don't think you want that.* 

*This sort of thing is coming up way too often lately, and we're going to stop being tolerant.

Play nice.  Or you won't be playing at all.  If you don't think this applies to you, it probably does.

jks9199
Super Moderator
*


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 6, 2011)

I appreciate the thread being moved and hope that the thread gets back on track with the original purpose.

Thank you.


----------



## mastercole (Jun 7, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> The purpose of this thread is to go into the differences in training methodology, primarily focusing on the SD model. It isnt' to say one is better or superior to the other as each has a different focus and a different goal. So from the very beginning I want to make it clear that this isnt' an 'us' vs. 'them' thread. It isn't a we're great and you suck thread. It is only to discuss the SD training methodology in and of itself and how it differs from the sport model.
> 
> For the sport-only instructor/practitioner that has only the focus or goal of sport competition, this thread will probably be of little value. And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front and what is desired.
> 
> ...




The premise that "sport" practitioners are not interested in SD is flawed, so everything else you propose is moot.

And this odd statement: "And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front and what is desired."

Are you kidding me?  I don't clearly state any goal, about anything to anyone I invite to our athletic full contact training sessions. I say "come here, try this" I don't need to clarify anything about SD, tournaments, etc. People feel the value they get first hand. No need to convince them of anything. They either like it or they don't.  Of those that stay and take the training, I guarantee you they have a greater physical and psychological advantage in a real self defense situation over non-athlete types who attend an 8-24 hour seminar or two over a year or so. I'm certainly willing to put my money where my mouth is, just ask Puunui.

See here is what you need to know. What you call sport Taekwondo, it's actually called Shihap Kyorugi, and the inventors of if, whom I know personally aka your seniors, said they created it for a stronger self defense base over what existed at that time.  In earlier post, I gave details why.  In the end, it was so well thought out, the felt they could approach the IOC with Shihap Kyorugi, instead of some other form of Taekwondo Kyorugi or Poomsae practice.  The IOC looked at Shihap Kyorugi and said it made good sense, and excepted Shihap Kyorugi as an Olympic Event. 

Gen. Choi hated that and hated South Korea for it, as he failed to get his ITF recognized by the IOC, so instead of focusing on making his ITF better, he focused all his effort into propaganda to damage South Korea (and American by extension). he threw all his support behind KIM, Il Sung's North Korean dictatorship and rallied them to his cause gaining their support and eventual take over of his ITF as a propaganda weapon against South Korea.

What is South Korea's most important product, from that day to this very day?  Taekwondo.  Taekwondo saved South Korea from the fate of South Vietnam, and Taekwondo's vast network or relationships has saved NATO from a 2nd Korean War, so far.

Shihap Kyorugi is itself defense based. According to its creators, the IOC and many others with higher qualifications than you or I.  So your premise that it is not, is completely wrong, according to the senior men who made it, and I agree with them. The reason that you don't know about this is that you and your group have lost touch, or never been in touch with these seniors. If you had been, you would know this and not knowingly or unknowingly follow Gen. Choi's claims that Shihap Kyorugi is not self defense. 

And that you regurgitate Choi's false negative propaganda against Shihap Kyorugi (and you are supposed to be from Hanmookwan roots?)  My self and my seniors are very disappointed.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 7, 2011)

The following is a summary of my hapkido syllabus.  

*At tenth geub:* I start with brand new students by teaching them proper breathing, proper posture, stances, and how to move.  Then I move into basic falling and rolling from a squat and basic kicks.  I start with kicks before hand/arm techniques because hand strikes come more naturally to most people; kicking needs more work.  Then I teach a basic, vertical knife hand strike.  Then I start them on basic escapes and counters to same side wrist grabs, how to do a wrist lock, arm bar, turning break, hip toss, over the back throw, and sweep.  

*At 9th geub*, I move them into basic blocking, add more kicks, move them into rolling and falling from a standing position, and start them with five step sparring.  Finally, I move them into cross hand wrist grab defenses and counters.

*At 8th geub*, I add knee strikes and basic hand stikes: cross punch, hook punch, upper cut.  Rolls and falls are now done with a jump. Then I move them into two handed cross hand wrist grabs.  Some no contact free sparring is introduced.

*At 7th geub*, I add jabs, spear hands, arch hand, and palm strikes.  Hooking kicks and the crouching spin kick are also added.  Defenses are against both side wrist grabs (each of the opponent's hands grabbing each of the student's).  Students move to three step sparring. Light contact free sparring is introduced.  

*At 6th geub*, elbow strikes are added, kicks are done in combinations, rotating kicks are added, and students move into clothing grabs to the sleaves.  Students move to one step sparring.  Light to medium contact sparring is introduced.

*At 5th geub*, students move into front of body grab defenses, including hair grabs, lapel grabs, and belt grabs.  Jump kicks are added at this level.

*At 4th geub*, students move into back of body defenses.  Jump/rotating kicks are added at this level.  Full contact sparring with protective gear introduced.

*At 3th geub*, students learn defenses against bear hugs and chokes, both from the front and from the back.   Students move to free one step sparring; student A. throws whatever technique he or she chooses to and student B. must defend appropriately.

*At 2nd geub*, students learn defenses against a standing opponent from a seated position.

*At first geub*, students must execute wrist locks, throws, and arm bars against an opponent who is punching them rather than just grabbing them.  

*At dan-bo*, students review the geub grade curriculum in its entirety in preparation for first dan testing.

*At first dan*, weapon defenses, fighting against multiple opponents, and use of weapons are introduced.  

What is listed above is not exhaustive, but a summary of my syllabus.  As students move through the geub grades, I point out the principles of the techniques and connect them from one scenario to the next so that they understand that they are not learning 72 separate hoshinsul techniques, but a much smaller number of techniques applied in different ways.  

We do some scenariio based training, mainly the sorts of things that my students are most likely to run into.  I don't go hog wild on this, as the idea of needing training for each and every possible scenario is precisely the trap that I don't want my students to fall into.

I also cover a lot of non-physical material, including Korean terminology (some at each geub), exercise of good sense, and good habits designed to reduce the chances of students being victimized.  Nothing revolutionary.  I haven't synergized, matricized, or simonized my curriculum.  Just plain old common sense, which is surprisingly uncommon (lock your car doors, don't be jabbering on the cell phone as you walk through the darkened parking lot, etc.).  I place a strong emphasis on keeping out of and getting away from trouble.

Also, I am very careful to separate techniques that are designed for improvement of flexibility and ballance from those that are more practical in nature.

My actual technique count is actually fairly brief, but I focus a *lot* on repetition and correctness, particularly early on.

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 7, 2011)

mastercole said:


> The premise that "sport" practitioners are not interested in SD is flawed, so everything else you propose is moot.



You need to read posts with better comprehension skills. It would save you much typing.  There are many instructors/practitioners that focus solely on sport training and have no interest in SD applications.  Nothing wrong with that.  And if they aren't really interested in SD applications then this thread would bore them.  I also stated there are sports instructors/practitioners that focus on sport but have an interest in SD applications.  This thread would have some details of interest to them.



> And this odd statement: "And there is nothing wrong with being a sport  only instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up  front and what is desired."


What would be odd about a sports-only instructor not advertising they teach SD...when they don't?  



> Of those that stay and take the training, I guarantee you they have a  greater physical and psychological advantage in a real self defense  situation over non-athlete types who attend an 8-24 hour seminar or two  over a year or so. I'm certainly willing to put my money where my mouth  is, just ask Puunui.


I'll take someone that has completed S.P.E.A.R. or PCR or Boatman's course or CQDT over your sport guy any day to be very honest with you.  I've seen both in action in the real world against real determined attackers.  But if you'd like to spend your money, fly on over and I'll be happy to instruct you on SD training methodology.  I've successfully taught about a thousand people, we'll make you 1001.



> See here is what you need to know. What you call sport Taekwondo, it's  actually called Shihap Kyorugi, and the inventors of if, whom I know  personally aka your seniors, said they created it for a stronger self  defense base over what existed at that time.  In earlier post, I gave  details why.  In the end, it was so well thought out, the felt they  could approach the IOC with Shihap Kyorugi, instead of some other form  of Taekwondo Kyorugi or Poomsae practice.  The IOC looked at Shihap  Kyorugi and said it made good sense, and excepted Shihap Kyorugi as an  Olympic Event.


I've noticed that you and your friend like to drop in all the people you claim to know.  Perhaps you think it is impressive to name-drop or slip in all the pioneers that you claim to know.  It isn't really.  Be that as it may, if you think being accepted as an Olympic event means it qualifies as SD, you are really, seriously out of touch with what SD is and what it takes to attain it.  No wonder you don't think SD can be taught, which is a silly statement to make anyway.  I've been teaching it for decades.  Before me, Charles Nelson and Pat O'Neill and Carl Cestari etc have taught it.  And people have gone out and successfully defended themselves in real life against real, determined attackers.  So I say again, with respect, if you think TKD being included in the Olympics makes it a SD art....you really need to fly in so I can educate you on what SD really is and how it can be taught.  I'll even teach you for free.  



> And that you regurgitate Choi's false negative propaganda against Shihap  Kyorugi (and you are supposed to be from Hanmookwan roots?)  My self  and my seniors are very disappointed.


I could care less about Choi.  I have my opinion on sport martial arts from my observations of how truly ineffective it is in the real world.  I'm disappointed in you if you claim to teach a defensive art to your students.  Your doing them a disservice.  I'm sure you make a great competitor with your training, but you have no idea what SD really is.  That isn't meant as an insult, but a truth based on your comments in this and other threads.  I know your buddies with Puunui, I know you think you need to rush to his defense.  But I think both of you would be better served by putting aside your pride and your spirit of offense and try to learn something from this thread.  A good instructor...a truly good instructor is constantly trying to learn so he can be a better teacher for their students.  

Since this is a thread devoted to SD, the purpose for being here should be to discuss and learn about SD, not defend sports training methodology.  If you think sports training methodology is valid for defense, simply start a thread on it and discuss it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 7, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> *I'll take* *someone that has completed S.P.E.A.R. or PCR or Boatman's course or CQDT over your sport guy any day* to be very honest with you. I've seen both in action in the real world against real determined attackers. But if you'd like to spend your money, fly on over and I'll be happy to instruct you on SD training methodology. I've successfully taught about a thousand people, we'll make you 1001.


In order to make sure that we're all on the same page as we read the exchanges between Master Cole, Puunui, and yourself, what do you mean by this?

Do you mean...

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refresher courses and nothing else?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refresher courses by LEO or military personnel?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to a class or two per week in a regular dojo/dojang?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to a class or two per week in a commercial dojo/dojang and regular practice between classes?

or...

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to three to five classes per week in a traditional dojo/dojang that does not have a competitive element and regular practice between classes?

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to three to five classes per week in a traditional dojo/dojang that has a competitive element and possibly a competition team and regular practice between classes?

Please specify which one or which ones you mean.  *If *you are talking about the first one (seminar & refresher only), then I think that you need to seriously rethink your position. 

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 7, 2011)

We need to look at real world data to not only find out what is effective, but why and with that, how long is is usable for.

In regards to training programs like S.P.E.A.R. or Boatman or ISI, it is easily learned and it is retained in long term memory.   The initial training is anywhere from 8-40 hours in duration depending upon which program we're talking about and if it is an instructor level or line staff course.  Refresher training is provided every 12-24 months, with that training being about 2-4 hours in duration.  Why?  Because it has been found to be effective months or years after the initial training and it has been found that refresher training isn't needed any sooner.  This is taking into account an average user.  There are always exceptions to the norm on both sides.  Now, I'm an LEO trainer who teaches these courses and has studied the data on long term retention.  I'm not guessing.  I'm not looking it up on the net.  I'm telling you first hand what the norm is for our agency and the surrounding agencies.  

We have a large data pool of Deputies and officers using the above mentioned training, on and off duty with a high % rate of success months and even years after initial training.  In many cases, before refresher training was implemented.  That is just simple fact.  That's why we teach what we teach, how we teach and when we teach.

SD does not take years to learn. Does this mean that a person can't train it often such as weekly or monthly?  Of course not.  Like anything, it can be trained as often as desired.  Does it mean that a person might not get rusty without 20 years of use?  Sure.  

BUT...

There is factual data on O'Neill's WWII combatives course which was 8-24 hours in length that was still successfully used by people that took the training decades later and are now in their senior years.  I would encourage anyone to look into WWII combatives and their training methodologies.  

Now a person is a person.  A private citizen can learn many of the same things that a LEO or military learns in regards to SD, and often even more as the situations can be different.  And many of these principles can be integrated into many existing systems.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 7, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Daniel Sullivan said:
> 
> 
> > In order to make sure that we're all on the same page as we read the exchanges between Master Cole, Puunui, and yourself, what do you mean by this?
> ...


 
Thats nice, but you didn't answer my question in any way shape or form. 

So I will ask again,

Do you mean...

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refresher courses and nothing else?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refresher courses by LEO or military personnel?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to a class or two per week in a regular dojo/dojang?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to a class or two per week in a commercial dojo/dojang and regular practice between classes?

or...

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to three to five classes per week in a traditional dojo/dojang that does not have a competitive element and regular practice between classes?

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to three to five classes per week in a traditional dojo/dojang that has a competitive element and possibly a competition team and regular practice between classes?



Kong Soo Do said:


> *SD does not take years to learn. Does this mean that a person can't train it often such as weekly or monthly? Of course not. Like anything, it can be trained as often as desired. Does it mean that a person might not get rusty without 20 years of use? Sure. *
> 
> BUT...
> 
> ...


The bolded part above makes all the difference in the world.  Frequency of training makes all the difference in the world.  If you don't maintain your skills for a year or more, you may retain some of the knowledge, or perhaps all of it, but that knowledge will do you far less good without regular training.  I will say more on the subject, but before I do, I would like to know which category or categories you are speaking of.

Thank you,

Daniel


----------



## puunui (Jun 7, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Do you mean...
> ...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refresher courses and nothing else?
> ...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refresher courses by LEO or military personnel?




I believe he already said number 1, perhaps number 2 as well. I think he also said that the training holds so that you only have to do the refresher course every 18 months, not annually. As for one lengthy seminar, I believe he said a seminar would last anywhere from 8 to 24 hours and you would be good to go, that training for self defense does not require a long drawn out process like how we normally think of when we think of martial arts training, which can go on for decades or a lifetime.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 7, 2011)

puunui said:


> I believe he already said number 1, perhaps number 2 as well. I think he also said that the training holds so that you only have to do the refresher course every 18 months, not annually. As for one lengthy seminar, I believe he said a seminar would last anywhere from 8 to 24 hours and you would be good to go, that training for self defense does not require a long drawn out process like how we normally think of when we think of martial arts training, which can go on for decades or a lifetime.


 
Yes, thank you.  

Let me use Hapkido as an example.  Hapkido is what I would term an advanced art.  You don't learn it in a weekend.  It is an art that has principles that are usually taught in a building block manner i.e. you start simple and work into more advanced principles.  That isnt' a bad thing, quite the opposite, it is an art that a person can really 'sink their teeth' into.  

SD is usually simple and ugly.  Let me use Boatman's edged weapon defense course.  It is 16 hours long and you come out as one big bruise.  But from the data, Officer injury rates in GB dropped from 87% to 16% in two years time.  And the number of edged weapon altercations had gone up after implementation.  It isn't magic.  It doesn't make supermen/women.  It is just a plain, simple, ugly, brutal gross motor skill technique that works well in the field.  

Is it better than a 'martial art' edged weapon defense that may take longer to learn?  I don't know.  I would like to find some real world data on various arts edged weapon defenses in real altercations.  But it is difficult to find.  But it is quick to learn and has been proven to still be highly useful even up to two years later after initial training.  That is a pretty substantial return on the initial investment of 16 hours training.  Again, not saying it is better, but I can't find data to say other stuff works X percent of the time.  If anyone has something I would like to see it please.  It would be good to have something of comparison.


----------



## puunui (Jun 7, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Let me use Hapkido as an example.  Hapkido is what I would term an advanced art.  You don't learn it in a weekend.  It is an art that has principles that are usually taught in a building block manner i.e. you start simple and work into more advanced principles.  That isnt' a bad thing, quite the opposite, it is an art that a person can really 'sink their teeth' into.



What is your experience with Hapkido as a self defense training methodology? Have you studied Hapkido?




Kong Soo Do said:


> SD is usually simple and ugly.  Let me use Boatman's edged weapon defense course.  It is 16 hours long and you come out as one big bruise.  But from the data, Officer injury rates in GB dropped from 87% to 16% in two years time.  And the number of edged weapon altercations had gone up after implementation.  It isn't magic.  It doesn't make supermen/women.  It is just a plain, simple, ugly, brutal gross motor skill technique that works well in the field.



I understand Peter Boatman's course is geared primarily towards LEO. Also, do you have any personal experiences to share regarding the effectiveness of the Boatman course? Did taking the course save your life?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 7, 2011)

puunui said:


> What is your experience with Hapkido as a self defense training methodology? Have you studied Hapkido?
> 
> I understand Peter Boatman's course is geared primarily towards LEO. Also, do you have any personal experiences to share regarding the effectiveness of the Boatman course? Did taking the course save your life?


 
In my personal opinion, Hapkido is the most realistic of the Korean arts from the perspective of SD.  I think Hapkido takes into consideration more possibilities and offers a wider range of solutions to potential problems.  No disrespect to other KMA's.

I've studied Hapkido and Aikijujutsu.  I can't give you an exact % but I would estimate that I've used HKD/AJJ principles and techniques 80%+ of the time i.e. joint locks, throws, sweeps etc.  

I'm not a kicker, and can't ever remember kicking anyone.  I've knee spiked people though. 

I'm short on time at the moment, I'll get back to the Boatman question.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 8, 2011)

In regards to Boatman, here is a short quote I placed on my board;



> Circa 2000 I took an  Edged Weapon Defense Instructor's program at S.E.P.S.I. which is our  regional LEO training center.  It was given by Peter Boatman of the  North Hamptonshire P.D. in Great Britain.  It was an excellent course  and I've since put it into the Mu Shin Hyung.
> 
> Since taking the course, I've spoken with a gentleman by the name of  Darren Laur, a police officer in Victoria B.C., Canada.  He stated that  he developed the system and that Mr. Boatman appropriated the system,  failing to give him proper credit.  Mr. Boatman is now deceased after  taking his own life in an unrelated matter.  Looking at the material on  Mr. Laur's website Link it appears almost identical to the power point presentation (and my notes) at that S.E.P.S.I. seminar.
> 
> ...



A member or my board also took the course at a different time than I did and offered a short comment;



> I took a seminar from  Mr. Boatman several years ago at a "High Liability Instructor's Course"  in Orlando several years ago.  His principles and techniques were sound.
> 
> His Brit stories were great.



I have not used this specific training in a life/death situation.  But I have used a modified version for an effective control in a non-edged weapon altercation.  I do know of people that have used it effectively in deadly force altercations.  This training is now a part of our in-service training program.

He (Boatman) did target LEO for this training, both here and in GB and it had the informal label of 'Pat, Wrap and Attack'.  I understand when he retired he went into private consulting.  I do not know if he continued to teach and if so to what audience.  I feel it would have been very useful to the normal private citizen since it was so easily learned.  It was designed to be a brutal response to an edged weapon attack, but could also be useful in a non-edged weapon altercation i.e. someone punching you.  And in a non-deadly force altercation the brutality of the response could have been backed down.  And actually it would be quite useful after making the initial 'Pat, Wrap' to move directly into a balance displacement techniques.  A chin hook, using the infra orbital or a knife hand take down (the terms we used to describe the technique) would have worked well due to how you end up in relation to you attacker.  

I personally know people that have used S.P.E.A.R. in both non-deadly force and deadly force altercations.  One example was a fellow Deputy that was sucker punched by a guy.  The bad guy jumped into the Deputies cruiser and attempted to steal it.  The Deputy jumped into the car and on top of the bad guy.  The bad guy turned out to be an EDP.  He lifted the Deputy and pressed him against the inside roof of the cruiser with his forearm across his throat.  The Deputy stated that he began to lose consciousness.  The amount of room in the cruiser was very small and tight as can be imagined with two grown men laying across both front seats, the computer, steering wheel, safety cage etc.  He remembered the CQ elbow strikes from the S.P.E.A.R. program he'd taken the year before.  It is an horizontal elbow strike that can be used even if you're almost nose to nose with someone.  He used two strikes and the bad guy was knocked out.

The S.P.E.A.R. system including the CQ elbow strikes are now included in our in-service training.  It has been effectively used in the jail as well.  

The course that I got the most out of personally was the PCR course (Physical Conflict Resolution).  It was all balance displacement stuff (Ken Good was on SEAL team six and an Aikijujutsu guy.  His partner Sonny (don't remember last name) was a former Soviet Spetzna (sp?) and KGB agent).  Upon reflection, this wouldn't be a course for someone that didn't have a foundation in some of the more 'soft' arts.  Not that they wouldn't benefit from it, but having a HKD/AJJ/Chin Na foundation first really helps.  It was more towards control than anything.  But for me it was a good fit due to the side of the arts I've tend to gravitate towards.  And I have used this type of training personally in the vast majority of my altercations.  I'm a good striker (knife hand and elbow) but I'd rather not strike if I have other options.  Ever since I tweaked my back doing heavy squats...my kicks suck.  That's just straight up being honest.  I was never Olympic quality and with a back that acts up from time to time...my kicking sucks.  But then, I never kicked anyone anyway.  I can knee spike like a Muay Thai fighter though!  But I'd rather get a lock on someone if appropriate.  

I would say that Boatman and S.P.E.A.R. would be great SD courses, either as a stand alone or small addition to a larger art, whereas PCR is more advanced. It is a good addition to someone who has had some time in the arts and could be a good addition to 'hard' arts that lack some of the 'softer' elements.  Just my perspective.   

I have placed elements and principles of the above into our one form, along with things learned from the arts.  Some are very simple, others more advanced.  My personal goal is to give the student something useable on the very first day.  Not make them a master, but something useable.  Then simply build on that and provide more 'meat' as they train.  In other words, give the short time student enough to deal with more common attacks (at least things like avoidance, evasion, de-escalation, basic defenses and some gross motor skill 'offenses') and have enough 'advanced' stuff for the student in it for the long haul.  

Hopefully this is making some sort of sense, its been a long day.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 8, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> puunui said:
> 
> 
> > I believe he already said number 1, perhaps number 2 as well. I think he also said that the training holds so that you only have to do the refresher course every 18 months, not annually. As for one lengthy seminar, I believe he said a seminar would last anywhere from 8 to 24 hours and you would be good to go, that training for self defense does not require a long drawn out process like how we normally think of when we think of martial arts training, which can go on for decades or a lifetime.
> ...


It doesn't matter if it is advanced or if it takes a year of five years to learn,  If you don't train in it, then after a certain point, your skills diminish to a point that they are no longer reliable.  Does it mean that they are entirely lost?  No, but if you aren't training, you aren't prepared.  I don't care what you study.



Kong Soo Do said:


> SD is usually simple and ugly. Let me use Boatman's edged weapon defense course. It is 16 hours long and you come out as one big bruise. But from the data, Officer injury rates in GB dropped from 87% to 16% in two years time. And the number of edged weapon altercations had gone up after implementation.


Do LEO in GB train in some fashion on a regular basis?  If so, in what manner?  How about in the US, where the majority of members are?

And what sort of statistics can you provide for civilians who take such courses and who do nothing more than the annual or every 18 month refresher course?



Kong Soo Do said:


> It isn't magic. It doesn't make supermen/women. It is just a plain, simple, ugly, brutal gross motor skill technique that works well in the field.


Not magic, but it takes more than 24 hours to learn to be able to reliably deal with a determined assailant, particularly an armed opponent.  And such skills need to be maintained.  As you said, it is not magic. 

While techniques that rely on gross motor skill tend to be better suited to SD, you still need to train in them regularly.  But if you aren't training, you aren't prepared.  I don't care what you study.  And taking an initial seminar, even a very intense one, and doing nothing more but following up with seminars every year to eighteen months does not count as training.

I suspect that the non physical elements from such seminars have a more lasting effect.  People can put them into use immediately, establish them as habits and benefit greatly.  

Also, I am sure that the physical experience brings with it a level of demystification for the layperson which will help them to keep from panicking.  But once things go beyond avoidance and verbal deescalation, if you want to be prepared, you need to be training regularly, both in your skills and with resisting opponents.

And if you are relying on an initial seminar plus annual or every 18 months refresher courses and nothing else, then you are by no means even close to being prepared for an encounter iwth an armed assailant.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Is it better than a 'martial art' edged weapon defense that may take longer to learn? I don't know. I would like to find some real world data on various arts edged weapon defenses in real altercations. But it is difficult to find. But it is quick to learn and has been proven to still be highly useful even up to two years later after initial training. That is a pretty substantial return on the initial investment of 16 hours training. Again, not saying it is better, but I can't find data to say other stuff works X percent of the time. If anyone has something I would like to see it please. It would be good to have something of comparison.


Again, saying that it is proven two years after the initial training; proven how?  With what sort of practice in the two years since the initial seminar?

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 8, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> It doesn't matter if it is advanced or if it takes a year of five years to learn,  If you don't train in it, then after a certain point, your skills diminish to a point that they are no longer reliable.  Does it mean that they are entirely lost?  No, but if you aren't training, you aren't prepared.  I don't care what you study.



Daniel,

I understand what you're saying here and I agree training is important.  I'm not advocating a person only attend a weekend seminar and a refresher ever two years.  What I am saying is that certain SD programs are taught that way (up to around 40 hours) and do have data that support their effectiveness long after the initial course.  Now here is the caveat;  the person needs to be serious about the class.  I'm not suggesting a person can breeze in with a half-**** attitude and get the most out of the course.  But a serious person, taking the course seriously will gain a lot of benefit.

I know that it seems training needs to be more often.  And for some things that is probably true.  But somethings apparently don't.  I've mentioned the senior citizen that took out an armed robber at a 7-11.  The guy was in his 70's at the time, never took MA's and probably wasn't in the best shape.  The only training he's ever received was a short H2H course while training in the F.S.S.F. during WWII under Dermott 'Pat' O'Neill.  He was able to recall that training decades later and use it successfully.

Would any of these programs be even better if trained regularly?  Of course.  But at least we have something that is viable for those that won't/don't train regularly.  I wish everyone did!  



> Do LEO in GB train in some fashion on a regular basis?  If so, in what  manner?  How about in the US, where the majority of members are?
> 
> And what sort of statistics can you provide for civilians who take such  courses and who do nothing more than the annual or every 18 month  refresher course?



The course I took was around 10 years ago, so I can only provide the data from that time.  It was a 16 hour course.  Refresher started out at 12 months and was back off to 18 months.  Which I'm sure made the bean-counters happy.  Our agency is 8 hours initially and 2-4 hours every 12-24 months depending on how training falls during that time.  

If I were in charge, I'd like to do an hour per month.  This comes from a study that proved that shooting 12 rounds per month was better than 120 rounds per year.  That was a revolver-day study.  That way the principles remain even fresher.  But I'm not in charge...

For civilians?  I don't know.  I teach my students these principles and techniques.  And of course, we train more often.  But who else may teach Boatman's material to civilians, I don't know.  



> Not magic, but it takes more than 24 hours to learn to be able to  reliably deal with a determined assailant, particularly an armed  opponent.  And such skills need to be maintained.



All I can say is that data indicates that some things can be learned in that time period and retained in long term memory.  But again, regular training would only strengthen it.



> I suspect that the non physical elements from such seminars have a more lasting effect.



I'm going to suggest just the opposite.  Take a 40 hour course for example and let's compare that to an hour long class taken three times per week.  That would equate to 3 1/2 months of 'normal' training, concentrated into a week.  That is a lot of repetitions of whatever technique.  I suspect that is why so much of it remains useable long after the training.  And these sorts of courses (I can only speak for the ones I've taken) were basically, "Hi, my name is XYZ now let's get on the mats".  

So what I'm doing is taking that training, putting it into a MA training methodology i.e. in our form and then applying it to a scenario based format. In this way, since we are SD focused, a student gets some field tested material that is usable quickly while also getting more advanced material to build onto it while training frequently.  And at the same time inserting avoidance, evasion, escape, de-escalation, danger cues etc.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 8, 2011)

I also wanted to add a comment.  Programs like S.P.E.A.R., WWII H2H, Boatman etc were designed around easily learned, gross motor skills.  And if applied in a serious, robust fashion it's designed to overload an attacker by causing injury.  To be blunt, they're designed to bleed you, bleed you fast and blow you out.  

They are ideal for the user that isn't going to spend a lot of time...or any time in further training.  

As I noted above, I've used Boatman's stuff but in a modified version where there was no damage and it lead to balance displacement stuff.  You're not going to get that in a weekend.  What I'm saying is actually backing up Puunui's position in regards to injuring an attacker.  A novice with little training doesn't have the skills necessary to handle a situation with advanced control.  He can learn to 'blast' someone in a short period of time, but it takes training to be able to handle a situation without 'blasting' someone. 

So that is my perspective; give the novice something usable until they're no longer a novice.  Then their options increase.

Just some thoughts.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 8, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Daniel,
> 
> I understand what you're saying here and I agree training is important. I'm not advocating a person only attend a weekend seminar and a refresher ever two years. What I am saying is that certain SD programs are taught that way (up to around 40 hours) and do have data that support their effectiveness long after the initial course. Now here is the caveat; the person needs to be serious about the class. I'm not suggesting a person can breeze in with a half-**** attitude and get the most out of the course. But a serious person, taking the course seriously will gain a lot of benefit.


What kind of data? If you are talking about scenario 2; LEO/Military who take the initial course and the refresher, then you are talking about people who's professions put them in situations where they are much more likely to be encountering armed attackers, who have already received training, both in the course of getting into the profession, continued professional training of some kind, and on the job training.



Kong Soo Do said:


> I know that it seems training needs to be more often. And for some things that is probably true. But somethings apparently don't. I've mentioned the senior citizen that took out an armed robber at a 7-11. The guy was in his 70's at the time, never took MA's and probably wasn't in the best shape. The only training he's ever received was a short H2H course while training in the F.S.S.F. during WWII under Dermott 'Pat' O'Neill. He was able to recall that training decades later and use it successfully.
> 
> Would any of these programs be even better if trained regularly? Of course. But at least we have something that is viable for those that won't/don't train regularly. I wish everyone did!


I don't like to rely on anecdotes because for every anecdote that supports you there are ten that go the other way. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> The course I took was around 10 years ago, so I can only provide the data from that time. It was a 16 hour course. Refresher started out at 12 months and was back off to 18 months. Which I'm sure made the bean-counters happy. Our agency is 8 hours initially and 2-4 hours every 12-24 months depending on how training falls during that time.
> 
> If I were in charge, I'd like to do an hour per month. This comes from a study that proved that shooting 12 rounds per month was better than 120 rounds per year. That was a revolver-day study. That way the principles remain even fresher. But I'm not in charge...


I would agree that the greater frequency would be more beneficial.



Kong Soo Do said:


> For civilians? I don't know. I teach my students these principles and techniques. And of course, we train more often. But who else may teach Boatman's material to civilians, I don't know.


Well, that is what we're talking about: civilians. This is what Puunui meant on another thread when he asked you to cite 'real world' examples. Civilians live in a very different world from that of LEO and military. So far, the only specific source that you have cited for the success of these programs is British law enforcement. People who live in a world where their life is on the line daily have a very different outlook and skill set from that of the average civilian who's greatest danger is most likely an automobile accident.



Kong Soo Do said:


> All I can say is that data indicates that some things can be learned in that time period and retained in long term memory. But again, regular training would only strengthen it.


Yes, I agree, but I am talking about more than long term memory. My long term memory of TKD was excellent. But when I went back to TKD after a lengthy absense, my skills were such that I simply started again as a white belt and made no mention of any prior rank that I had attained. And before my absense, I had trained fairly regularly for many years. I also practiced basics during my absense and I still was little better than a white belt student. Didn't take more than a couple of months to get back into the groove, but if I had had to execute cold without having been back in regular training, I would have been fumbling through my forms and my technique would have looked way less than decent. 

Up until the point that I went back to class, however, I had no measure of how much my technique had degraded. It was a serious eye opener. 

Also, when you say "data indicates" I have to ask; what data?  And who interpreted it?  Experts can look at the same data and arrive at different conclusions.  The Gracies also said that "data indicates" that 90% or some such of all fights go to the ground.  Who's data?  LAPD!  Sounds convincing until you realize that the data relates to arresting officers and suspects and not to general fights between random people.  Not detracting from the Gracies, but they did use 'data' in a disingenuous way in order to market their system.  The fact that their system is excellent doesn't change that.



Kong Soo Do said:


> I'm going to suggest just the opposite. Take a 40 hour course for example and let's compare that to an hour long class taken three times per week. *That would equate to 3 1/2 months of 'normal' training*, concentrated into a week. That is a lot of repetitions of whatever technique. I suspect that is why so much of it remains useable long after the training. And these sorts of courses (I can only speak for the ones I've taken) were basically, "Hi, my name is XYZ now let's get on the mats".


No, it wouldn't. A seminar is set up very differently from a regular class, and students are supposed to be practicing in between classes. Some dont, but those who are serious do. Conventional classes don't cover a system from beginning to end, not in a week, not in a month. Also, conventional classes generally are focusing on getting a smaller amount of material into permanent muscle memory.



Kong Soo Do said:


> So what I'm doing is taking that training, putting it into a MA training methodology i.e. in our form and then applying it to a scenario based format. In this way, since we are SD focused, a student gets some field tested material that is usable quickly while also getting more advanced material to build onto it while training frequently. And at the same time inserting avoidance, evasion, escape, de-escalation, danger cues etc.


I think that that is great, but that is not the same as a person taking one seminar and an annual refresher with nothing else in between.

Daniel


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 8, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> ...
> 
> I think that that is great, but that is not the same as a person taking one seminar and an annual refresher with nothing else in between.
> 
> Daniel


 
Not to agree or disagree, but a thought.  When you refer to LEO and military, or even a serious civilian, what do you think the chances are they might in fact have things in between?  

If in any situation that could go bad, they begin remembering their training, even as they seek non-physical ways out of the situation, do they not have something in between?  Granted they won't be using the motor skill, but even reviewing mentally may help keep the skill, may it not?

Just curious what your thoughts are on that matter.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 8, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Not to agree or disagree, but a thought. When you refer to LEO and military, or even a serious civilian, what do you think the chances are they might in fact have things in between?
> 
> If in any situation that could go bad, they begin remembering their training, even as they seek non-physical ways out of the situation, do they not have something in between? Granted they won't be using the motor skill, but even reviewing mentally may help keep the skill, may it not?
> 
> Just curious what your thoughts are on that matter.


With civilians, it can range quite a bit.  Not familiar enough with LEO or military to know the specifics of their training.  As KSD is a deputy, I figure he can shed light on that.  

My main thing is that if you want proficiency in something, you need more than an initial seminar, even a forty hour seminar, and annual refresher courses.

Daniel


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 8, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> With civilians, it can range quite a bit. Not familiar enough with LEO or military to know the specifics of their training. As KSD is a deputy, I figure he can shed light on that.
> 
> My main thing is that if you want proficiency in something, you need more than an initial seminar, even a forty hour seminar, and annual refresher courses.
> 
> Daniel


 
No real argument.  I was just curious what your opinion was.  KSD seems to be saying he has statistics to show it works a suprising amount of times and I wondered if my scenario might account for it in your opinion.  Granted, statistics can be manipulated by some with an agenda (not saying KSD did so, but maybe the schools).

Just this morning I heard on the radio that 1 in 4 children in the country are hungry, and we need to continue the free breakfasts and lunches for kids somehow.  I also seem to recall that well over 25% of our children are obese.  While possible, I have trouble personally, reconcilling that.

But thanks for your reply.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 8, 2011)

Daniel,

I think one thing you're overlooking with your TKD example is the complexity of the system.  As you mentioned, you became rusty.  But TKD is a system of blocks, strikes, kicks, a multitude of forms, one-step, two-step, three-step drills, hoshinsul, sparring etc.  You may have been rusty, but I'll bet a lot was still in your muscle memory.  

Also, using an hour long class as an example, of the hour perhaps 5-15 minutes are warming up and some physical stuff.  Perhaps some lecture if something new is being taught.  Some forms work or drills.  A 40 course is probably 35-38 hours of mat time.  

The programs I'm talking about about are very simplistic.  Very few principles and/or techniques.  It is less material being concentrated into a longer training time.  That does make a difference.  

Just some considerations


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 8, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Daniel,
> 
> I think one thing you're overlooking with your TKD example is the complexity of the system. As you mentioned, you became rusty. But TKD is a system of blocks, strikes, kicks, a multitude of forms, one-step, two-step, three-step drills, hoshinsul, sparring etc. You may have been rusty, but I'll bet a lot was still in your muscle memory.


One huge difference is that I practiced taekwondo for over fifteen years before my break, which is very different from a comparatively tiny amount of training (40 hours).  Also, 40 hours is not enough time with resisting opponents to develop any meaningful skill *unless* you are training regularly in some fashion already, such as a Boatman class being taken by a taekwondo, hapkido, or karate student who attends regular class.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Also, using an hour long class as an example, of the hour perhaps 5-15 minutes are warming up and some physical stuff. Perhaps some lecture if something new is being taught. Some forms work or drills. A 40 course is probably 35-38 hours of mat time.


Yes, and then it abruptly stops.  My point was that three months of taekwondo is probably focusing on substantially less material in a typical US school than the 40 hour course.  Which is fine because you have at least another 21 months of class in the typical US TKD school.



Kong Soo Do said:


> The programs I'm talking about about are very simplistic. Very few principles and/or techniques. It is less material being concentrated into a longer training time. That does make a difference.


Longer than what?  40 hours is a much shorter training time than two years.  And in 40 hours of taekwondo over the course of three months from the beginning, you are still probably looking at less material.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 8, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> No real argument. I was just curious what your opinion was. KSD seems to be saying he has statistics to show it works a suprising amount of times and I wondered if my scenario might account for it in your opinion. Granted, statistics can be manipulated by some with an agenda (not saying KSD did so, but maybe the schools).


The question is who's statistics and statistics of whom?



oftheherd1 said:


> Just this morning I heard on the radio that 1 in 4 children in the country are hungry, and we need to continue the free breakfasts and lunches for kids somehow. I also seem to recall that well over 25% of our children are obese. While possible, I have trouble personally, reconcilling that.
> 
> But thanks for your reply.


Now you have two separate sets of statistics, both of which are likely true.  One in four children being hungry in the middle of a recession and double digit unemployment numbers isn't really all that surprising.

Given what I see of kids around my area, a 25% obesity figure would also seem average.

Keep in mind that the people who provide these figures are also trying to promote a cause of some kind.  

A question that I always have is, how many people did the study sample?  Neither number comes from a sampling of all children in the US.

So with KSD's data, the question is how big is the sampling group.  I seriously doubt that it sample every person who ever took the class, and he doesn't seem to be implying that either. 

I believe that he answered that and that the figures were from British law enforcement.  If am mistaken (quite possible), he may clarify.

Regardless of where the data came from, one thing that is certain is that it is not from his school because he has already indicated that he does not train his students in that manner; he teaches students on a regular basis who may be with him for a year or more, and he has integrated material from these courses into his curriculum.

I think that the point that he is trying to make is that taking such a course, even it its the only thing you ever do, is a good idea.  

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 8, 2011)

> I think that the point that he is trying to make is that taking such a course, even it its the only thing you ever do, is a good idea.


 
That's a good way to put it actually.  Something is better than nothing


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 8, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> That's a good way to put it actually. Something is better than nothing


I have mixed feelings on that.  I think in some ways, yes.  Particularly in the fact that a well done course can demystify a lot for an untrained person.  

In some ways, however, no.  I just don't see a 40 hour class as being enough time build in effective muscle memory.  

Daniel


----------



## OKenpo942 (Jun 8, 2011)

KSD, I hear you man. I am a LEO and Defensive Tactics instructor for my agency.

I think the problem in the translation here is that you are speaking to martial artists who have a history of studying their respective arts. The martial artist is like the upper brass whoo have forgotten where they came from.

Martial artists with a lot of training are in the mindset of learning a system and developing a complex skill set along with the "why" and "what ifs" (the principles). They also get so caught up in being the "expert" in what they do, that they cannot or will not accept that simple motor skills can and are effective to a certain demographic. Not everyone has or makes the time to study an art, but most are interested in learning a little something that can help in crunch time. We also tend to put ourselves up against other martial artists. These seminars, if you will, are for them.

The average "civilian" really has no clue what it is that we really do as LEOs and the amount of training it takes, not just to do the job as a newbie, but also the continued training it requires as we continue in our careers. 

That being said, along with all of the other training, or in the case of the "soccer mom", the busy schedule, It is very good to have a basic understanding of primitive self defense skills even if you can't dedicate several hours a week to it.

I know it may hard to believe for some, but a lot of these skills are effective. LEOs use them every day to survive confrontations on the street or to effect an arrest that needs to be made on a noncompliant subject. Sorry, but it is true. 

Some of my partners whose only training is what they recieved in the academy and a couple refresher courses are quite capable in hand to hand situations. Maybe not as skilled as many of us in this forum, but they are probably, in most cases, better at retaining their sidearm and more proficient with its use when needed, thus the overall effectiveness of the courses that KSD is referring.

Thanks,

James.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 8, 2011)

Okenpo, I'm not sure who or what your post is addressing, but what is your opinion of taking a class such as KSD describes in a format of one initial seminar an annual follow up classes?

Also, as LEO, what sort of regular training do you receive?  

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 8, 2011)

OKenpo942 said:


> KSD, I hear you man. I am a LEO and Defensive Tactics instructor for my agency.
> 
> I think the problem in the translation here is that you are speaking to martial artists who have a history of studying their respective arts. The martial artist is like the upper brass whoo have forgotten where they came from.


Cannot speak for others, but I am not a martial artist.  Hapkido and taekwondo have little to no martial application.  Martial as in used in war.  The one art that I practice and teach that has 'martial application' is archaic, so without a time machine, it is more about preservation of archaic skills and self improvement than anything else.

Self defense is not 'martial.'  Nor is one on one fighting.  Most "martial arts" are better termed as fighting systems.

I am an instructor.  Period.  Unless you are making films with your skill or doing some kind of martial ballet, or some other endeavor that mixes the martial with the artistic, you are a taekwondin, karateka, hapkidoin, aikidoka, or whatever.   



OKenpo942 said:


> Martial artists with a lot of training are in the mindset of learning a system and developing a complex skill set along with the "why" and "what ifs" (the principles). *They also get so caught up in being the "expert" in what they do,* that they cannot or will not accept that simple motor skills can and are effective to a certain demographic.


Not universally, but that element certainly exists, and it is definitely not limited to MA.

My students get the most time logged on fairly basic stuff.  Complex techniques are of little use if you cannot use them during adrenaline dump or is you have so much material to practice that you do everything fair and none of it well.



OKenpo942 said:


> Not everyone has or makes the time to study an art, but most are interested in learning a little something that can help in crunch time. We also tend to put ourselves up against other martial artists. These seminars, if you will, are for them.


Absolutely true, and such seminars are good.  But if you take the seminar and do nothing to reinforce those skills whatsoever for a year to eighteen months, I question how much you will retain the physical skills.  I say that as an instructor who has seen students miss several months of class and have seen how much their skills can deteriorate without consistent practice, not as an expert.

I have also seen how easy it is to pick up bad habits that can be your undoing when nobody is giving you correction.

As I pointed out, KSD is running what seems to be a pretty thorough and well put together program, not a take it once and hope that it sticks for a year to eighteen months.

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 8, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Also, as LEO, what sort of regular training do you receive?
> Daniel


 
Commenting only on my own and local;

If memory serves, a recruit receives 106 hours of Defensive Tactics in the academy.  Initial firearms is about the same with additional, specific training once they reach their agency.  We have a system in place where training now occurs annually in either 16 or 24 hour blocks.  This would include things like CPR refresher (first responder and AED), Taser, O.C., Baton and/or ASP, D.T. and Firearms.  

The D.T. for in-service is a combination of things such as S.P.E.A.R., Boatman, Lambria (ground fighting/stabilization) and some other CQ stuff.  Nothing fancy and all gross motor skill.  The firearms has turned towards Israeli training (which I'm an instructor) and it is top notch.  

Officers have the opportunity to take specialized courses from time to time at S.E.P.S.I. (SouthEastern Public Safety Institute) at St. Petersburg College.  As an example, over the years I've taken;

S.P.E.A.R. instructor
PCR instructor
Boatman edged weapon defense instructor
FDLE D.T. and Firearms instructor
ISI Israeli Firearms instructor
ISI Krav Maga instructor
Each of those were either 40 or 80 hours long except for Boatman which was 16 hours.  Those are instructor-only level courses, non-instructor level courses are also available for line staff.

If I were not an instructor, and didn't train on my own, I would receive either 16 or 24 hours of training annually as a refresher.  There are always the 'lazy' exceptions, but by and large this is enough to maintain proficency in these skills.

Of course, more frequent training will always be beneficial.


----------



## puunui (Jun 9, 2011)

OKenpo942 said:


> That being said, along with all of the other training, or in the case of the "soccer mom", the busy schedule, It is very good to have a basic understanding of primitive self defense skills even if you can't dedicate several hours a week to it.




Why does the soccer mom have to have a basic understanding of primitive self defense skills? I never played soccer, but my mother doesn't have any understanding of physical self defense, and she has never been in an altercation in her life. Neither has my father. Should they take a self defense course? Would it be good for them?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 9, 2011)

puunui said:


> Why does the soccer mom have to have a basic understanding of primitive self defense skills? I never played soccer, but my mother doesn't have any understanding of physical self defense, and she has never been in an altercation in her life. Neither has my father. Should they take a self defense course? Would it be good for them?


 
Good grief sir!


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 9, 2011)

puunui said:


> Why does the soccer mom have to have a basic understanding of primitive self defense skills? I never played soccer, but my mother doesn't have any understanding of physical self defense, and she has never been in an altercation in her life. Neither has my father. Should they take a self defense course? Would it be good for them?


Most people have no immediate need for such skills.  They generally have developed habits and lifestyles that minimize their exposure to potential threats.  They are aware that such threat exist, but rather than train to physically fight such threats, they place their effort into things that affect them on a more regular basis.

For the most part, if an adult follows all of the advice their mother gave them when they were little, they will probably never need to defend themselves against an unarmed attacker.  Against an armed assailant, such as a mugger, most people simply give them their wallet and leave unscathed. 

Given the general poor quality of many unarmed defenses against guns and knives, and that the good ones are still highly risky, cooperation is generally considered the best course of action.

Regarding those knife and gun defenses, I don't care how good a program is: if you take a lengthy seminar and annual refresher courses *and do not drill them regularly*, any unarmed defenses against an armed opponent that you learned will be worse than nothing at all.  

If your mom knows no knife or gun defenses, she won't try them if confronted with an armed man demanding her pocketbook.  If John Doe attends a forty hour SD class and learns knife and gun defenses and is confronted eight months later by a knife or gun wielding man demanding his wallet, he may decide that "I know knife/gun defenses" and try them, and most likely, end up as a practice dummy for the mugger and later, the emergency room doctor... or the coroner. 

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 9, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Most people have no immediate need for such skills. They generally have developed habits and lifestyles that minimize their exposure to potential threats. They are aware that such threat exist, but rather than train to physically fight such threats, they place their effort into things that affect them on a more regular basis.


 
I will say again that in the times we live in, any place can be the wrong place and anytime can be the wrong time.  Self-defense, as I define it begins long before having to go hands-on.  It would always be a good idea to take a course on ways to prevent crime such as home security, while traveling etc.  Many local police departments offer this service as a community project.  And I will maintain that a good, solid course that offers some basic, gross motor skill principles are a plus and not a negative.  I often offered very short duration courses, usually for women at my school.  I would stress the prevention side, offer some very basic H2H principles, teach about O.C. and give each student a key chain spray and/or personal alarm for the key chain.  



> For the most part, if an adult follows all of the advice their mother gave them when they were little, they will probably never need to defend themselves against an unarmed attacker. Against an armed assailant, such as a mugger, most people simply give them their wallet and leave unscathed.


 
They also used to tell women to submit to the rape and not resist because they wouldn't get hurt if they didn't resist.  It doesn't work that way in real life.  They still tell people to cooperate with the mugger and not resist so they don't get hurt.  It does't work that way in real life.  Oh, you might occassionally get the 'gentleman' rapist or mugger that won't hurt you I suppose.  And 'official' agencies can't really tell you otherwise becuase they don't want to be responsible.  But the fact of the matter is that you are far more likely to get hurt regardless of whether or not you resist and the major factor is drug related.  

Listen to me clearly people, I'm very serious about this because I know first-hand because I talk to these people almost daily.  Many are NOT in their right mind.  If any of you knew just how many 'bad people' are on serious medication you would be dumb-founded!  There are normal street drugs, prescription abuse, homemade drugs and now the synthetic drugs sweeping the streets.  When these people are high (and they most often are on something during the commission of the crime) they will NOT act like human beings.  When you watch the evening news or read the daily paper you are only seeing a fraction of crimes.  Most don't make the paper.  

Now, I'm not suggesting you walk around like a Ninja, suspecting an attack around every corner.  Nor am I suggesting you freak out if someone asks you for the time.  What I'm telling you is that violent crime can happen anywhere, anytime, to anyone.  And if you've been selected as the potential victim you're going to have to make a choice at some point in the incident.  As I've stated before, the mission is survival and the method is whatever it takes to accomplish the mission.  The 'method' may be to simply hand over your wallet and the bad guy takes it and runs away.  But you better face reality in that you may very well have to fight for your very life.  In todays age, which would you think is more likely?  

Everyone likes to think it will only happen to 'someone else'.  Well....someone has to be that 'someone else'.  Situational awareness goes a loooooonnnnngggg way.  De-escalation goes a loooonnnnnggg way.  Swallowing your pride and walking away when someone has called you a %#$*&(^ goes a looonnnnngggg way.

But you know what?  When that fails, a good solid chin jab, eye rake, throat punch or knee to the groin can go a looooonnnngggg way as well.  And it doesn't take a whole lot of training or practice.  And with respect, I'll maintain that these easily learned gross motor skills will retain their usefulness for a very long time.  Does it beat training on a regular basis?  No.  Does it beat just standing there and being a victim if all other options have been taken away from you to walk away unharmed?  Yes.

But...but the person might get hurt if they try to fight back..

Well, if the person is going to hurt you regardless of what you do then at least give yourself a chance.  But ultimately it is up to you.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 9, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> *I will say again that in the times we live in,* any place can be the wrong place and anytime can be the wrong time.


In the times we live in, violent crime has actually been on the decline in the US.  http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm



Kong Soo Do said:


> *Self-defense, as I define it begins long before having to go hands-on. *It would always be a good idea to take a course on ways to prevent crime such as home security, while traveling etc. Many local police departments offer this service as a community project. And I will maintain that a good, solid course that offers some basic, gross motor skill principles are a plus and not a negative. I often offered very short duration courses, usually for women at my school. I would stress the prevention side, offer some very basic H2H principles, teach about O.C. and give each student a key chain spray and/or personal alarm for the key chain.


You're preaching to the choir on this, but none of this is what I am actually talking about in my previous posts.  Perhaps we're talking past eachother on some level. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> They also used to tell women to submit to the rape and not resist because they wouldn't get hurt if they didn't resist. It doesn't work that way in real life. They still tell people to cooperate with the mugger and not resist so they don't get hurt. It does't work that way in real life. Oh, you might occassionally get the 'gentleman' rapist or mugger that won't hurt you I suppose. And 'official' agencies can't really tell you otherwise becuase they don't want to be responsible. *But the fact of the matter is that you are far more likely to get hurt regardless of whether or not you resist and the major factor is drug related.*


Giving up a wallet and submitting to rape do not equate, but regardless, would you please provide some statsics to support this?  Not saying that you are wrong, by the way, but people on the web do say a lot of things, often simply repeating what someone else told them but never stopping to consider if it was accurate before passing it along.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Listen to me clearly people, I'm very serious about this because I know first-hand because I talk to these people almost daily. Many are NOT in their right mind. If any of you knew just how many 'bad people' are on serious medication you would be dumb-founded! There are normal street drugs, prescription abuse, homemade drugs and now the synthetic drugs sweeping the streets. When these people are high (and they most often are on something during the commission of the crime) they will NOT act like human beings. When you watch the evening news or read the daily paper you are only seeing a fraction of crimes. Most don't make the paper.
> 
> Now, I'm not suggesting you walk around like a Ninja, suspecting an attack around every corner. Nor am I suggesting you freak out if someone asks you for the time. What I'm telling you is that violent crime can happen anywhere, anytime, to anyone. And if you've been selected as the potential victim you're going to have to make a choice at some point in the incident. As I've stated before, the mission is survival and the method is whatever it takes to accomplish the mission. The 'method' may be to simply hand over your wallet and the bad guy takes it and runs away. But you better face reality in that you may very well have to fight for your very life. In todays age, which would you think is more likely?
> 
> ...


Again, you're preaching to the choir on much of this.  And again, none of this is actually what I am talking about.

What I have been saying is that if you are going to learn a skill that has a physical element that you intend to employ against an assailant who will most likely be either armed or bigger than yourself or both, then you need to train in that skill with resisting opponents regularly in order for it to be worthwhile.

The prevention stuff can be learned at the seminar, put into a packet which can be taken home and the info put immediately into use and practiced daily.  It is only the physical skills where I am saying that it is important to have more than just procedural memory.

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 9, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> In the times we live in, violent crime has actually been on the decline in the US. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm


 
Using a quote from one of your previous posts;



> Experts can look at the same data and arrive at different conclusions.


 
I see the jails and prisons with more customers now than when I started my career 21 years ago.  Our own county facility has added a 5-story, a 7-story and a 4-story building within that time to house the increase.  We're currently around the 4K mark give or take a few here and there.  A 1500 bed facility is in the works. 

I believe CA was just in the news regarding the need to release thousands back to the street due to over-crowding.  And for the most part, criminals get schooled in how to be better criminals while behind bars.  And they also cross-train each other in fighting, edged weapons etc.  

Just some considerations.  

In regards to the SD stuff, I think for many/most the hands on is retained much longer than the class room stuff.  We may have to agree to disagree on this, but I stick to what I've seen.

With respect.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 9, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Using a quote from one of your previous posts;


Given that you have yet to provide links to any data at all, you might want to hold off on such comments.

In any case, violent crime being down from twenty years ago doesn't mean that things are perfectly safe.  It only means that we aren't on our way to living in an 'escape from New York' world.



Kong Soo Do said:


> I see the jails and prisons with more customers now than when I started my career 21 years ago.  Our own county facility has added a 5-story, a 7-story and a 4-story building within that time to house the increase.  We're currently around the 4K mark give or take a few here and there.  A 1500 bed facility is in the works.
> 
> I believe CA was just in the news regarding the need to release thousands back to the street due to over-crowding.  And for the most part, criminals get schooled in how to be better criminals while behind bars.  And they also cross-train each other in fighting, edged weapons etc.


Yes.  As I said, you are preaching to the choir on a lot of things.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Just some considerations.
> 
> In regards to the SD stuff, I think for many/most the hands on is retained much longer than the class room stuff.  We may have to agree to disagree on this, but I stick to what I've seen.
> 
> With respect.


Again, please provide some kind of support for this.  I have asked several times.  Not an unreasonable request, given that what you say runs counter to conventional logic regarding retention of material.

Daniel


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 10, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> In the times we live in, violent crime has actually been on the decline in the US. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
> ...
> _Looking at the statistics you provided, I see problems.  They don't seem to agree.  In the crimes per 100,00, (the second two lines) the only crime that has gone down is murder.  I don't know which is correct._
> 
> ...


 
Just some thoughts of mine.  :asian:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 10, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Kong Soo Do said:
> 
> 
> > In regards to the SD stuff, I think for many/most the hands on is retained much longer than the class room stuff. We may have to agree to disagree on this, but I stick to what I've seen.
> ...


Incidentally, this is not a challenge or a debate tactic. 

Seriously, as an instructor, if there is a better and easier way of teaching material, I am all for it and would be interested.

However, personal experience and the overwhelming majority of teaching methodology differ in this regard.

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 29, 2011)

Hands on retention rates are vastly superior to lecture retention rates.  This has been commonly known in LE and military circles for many decades.  This is why we have so many hands-on drills that are scenario based such as the 'green room' and the FATS machine (FireArms Training System).

http://www.agr.wa.gov/PestFert/docs/P10PestNotes2002.pdf

http://www.ehow.com/info_8240384_pros-handson-training.html

http://www.tenouk.com/learningretentionrate.html

I've seen this with my son since we homeschool.  He does very well remembering from lecture and reading.  But when combined with visual the retention rate increases dramatically.  When combined with something hand-on such as a science experiment the retention rate is phenominal.  I remember when he had his first evaluation after completing the first grade.  The teacher/evaluator asked him 'what happens to the sun at night'?  She later said that 1st graders typically have responses like 'the sun turns off' or 'it goes into the ocean' etc.  My son goes into a 10 minute disertation on how the earth rotates on its axis while orbiting the sun etc.  She looked at him and then looked to me with a big smile.  I explained to her that in addition to the reading material for science, I have a telescope and we put together a model of the solar system.  So I'm convinced that hands-on will always trump just lecture-only for the majority of people.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 29, 2011)

Okay, maybe we are on two separate pages.  I have no dispute with you regarding hands on being more easily retained than lecture.  

The question has been about a long seminar followed up with annual or once every eighteen month refreshers being adequate.

As for classroom stuff, no MA class that I have ever been a part of has had much in the way of lecture.

It doesn't matter to me how hands on it is; in my experience, such a format (seminar + annual refreshers) is insufficient to internalize techniques that you will need to use in a violent encounter.

Daniel


----------



## Buka (Jun 29, 2011)

Maybe I'll check back later when the pi**ing contest stops and the self defense discussion starts.

Yes, I know, I'm new and should keep quiet. (Point taken) But, perhaps the sharing of thoughts might be a better way to go.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 29, 2011)

Buka said:


> Maybe I'll check back later when the pi**ing contest stops and the self defense discussion starts.


Pi**ing contest??



Buka said:


> Yes, I know, I'm new and should keep quiet. (Point taken) But, perhaps the sharing of thoughts might be a better way to go.


Perhaps instead of mock self pity in response to a point that has not been made (and thus cannot be taken), you should take your own advice and actually engage in the sharing of thoughts.

I cannot speak for others here, but I judge posts on their quality, not on the length of time that the poster has been a member.

If you feel that you have something worth saying, just say it.

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 29, 2011)

Buka said:


> Maybe I'll check back later when the pi**ing contest stops and the self defense discussion starts.
> 
> Yes, I know, I'm new and should keep quiet. (Point taken) But, perhaps the sharing of thoughts might be a better way to go.


 
Daniel and I aren't in a pissing contest.  As far as I've understood, we have a mutual respect towards each other that doesn't change based on whether we agree on a particular point.  I offer this as a clarification and invite your input on SD training methodology.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 29, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Daniel and I aren't in a pissing contest.  As far as I've understood, we have a mutual respect towards each other that doesn't change based on whether we agree on a particular point.  I offer this as a clarification and invite your input on SD training methodology.


Indeed.  

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 29, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Okay, maybe we are on two separate pages. I have no dispute with you regarding hands on being more easily retained than lecture.
> 
> The question has been about a long seminar followed up with annual or once every eighteen month refreshers being adequate.
> 
> ...


 
Ahh, I see now where I've gone off the page :rtfm:  My bad.

In regards to the question at hand i.e. training in a seminar format followed by periodic training;  This is the format that is almost exclusively followed for 'most' LE agencies that I'm familar with.  For example, firearms training and D.T. training is around 100+ hours in an academy setting followed by annual in-service training that can be anywhere from 16-40 hours.  Or, an in-service specialty program followed by anywhere from 8-40 hours annually or perhaps as long as 18 or even 24 months.  

Now, to be clear, more frequent training will always be a plus.  And again to be clear, not every Officer, Deputy, Trooper or Agent is going to take it upon themselves to train more frequently.  Those that do are often the exception rather than the rule.  

However...

Depending o the training, programs such as S.P.E.A.R., Boatman's Edeged Weapon or the ISI Israeli Instinctive shooting has shown to have a very high retention rate for the 'average' user that only recieves the initial block of instruction followed by infrequent, periodic training.  As I've mentioned (I think in this thread) our agency has documented on-duty incidents involving the above mentioned training by users that don't train frequently.  Such programs are gross motor skill based.  The initial training is in some cases....well intense isn't the word, perhaps severe would be a better term.  Remember, we're not talking about learning a complicated skill set.  We're talking simple, gross motor skills that are very easily learned.  I can't post a link to a website that shows a % for our agency or those within our circle of influence or those in GB.  It is just understood from internal reports and field observations. 

Now take a look at it from another perspective.  Agencies do not have an unlimited budget.  I can't speak for all agencies but our agency (and those in our area of influence) seek to get the greatest bang for the buck.  That is why the programs mentioned in this thread get chosen by so many agencies.  Take S.P.E.A.R. for example, it is taught in and out of North America to L.E., Military, Govt. etc for a reason.  It is simple, effective and has an established track record.  It isn't a super-secret-ninja-death-touch program, but it is simple and effective.  LE and Corrections have been using this type of training, in our area, for over 15 years now.  So much so that it is now part of in-service training even for those that didn't take the initial block of instruction.  

Now will it work for someone that doesn't take the training seriously?  No, probably not.  Will it work for someone that, to be blunt, is too much of a pansy to do what is necessary to employ the skills learned?  No, probably not.  But I am surrounded by professionals that have received no more training than what has been provided by the agency, that took it seriously, and have used it in the field successfully.  It doesn't make them super-cops, but it has provided an adequate platform for successful defense.  The rest is on the individual and their mind set.


----------



## Buka (Jun 29, 2011)

My apologies if I offended in any way, it was not my intent.

As for methodologies of Self Defense, I think we should diffrentuate between &#8220;student levels&#8221; when talking self defense.

Self Defense training should cover a lot of aspects. The first, in my opinion, should be a look at the legal and ethical questions of self defense. &#8220;Using force&#8221;, as it were.

&#8220;Gut feeling&#8221; is probably the best thing we have to warn againt trouble. However, &#8220;gut feeling&#8221; is a difficult thing to bring into a courtroom. And a courtroom is where any serious, physical aspect of self defense is likely to end up.

As for the training itself, it has been my experience that too many courses rely first and formost on battle, when they should be first focusing on escape and avoidance. A good course on self defense should also tailor itself to young males if, indeed, there a lot of young males as students. It should address ego, and how your ego can work against you, it should address &#8220;social behavior among young males&#8221; as opposed to real world suprise attack, and how to avoid both. Again, I think the emphasis should be on avoidance and recognizing the signs of social behavior and escalation.

If there are a lot of women in the course, women who have no background in self defense, martial arts, security or law enforcement, the course should be several months long. I think anything shorter than that is a waste of time. I no longer believe in &#8220;women's self defense courses&#8221;.

I think a good course should cover the bad guy, that is &#8220;intent&#8221;, &#8220;means&#8221;, and &#8221;opportunity&#8221;. And how you, or your attorney, would articulate that in court. The time to find that out is not after the fact, but before.

I think a good course on self defense should cover physiology as well as the capacity one might or might not have to injure, maim or kill a fellow human being.

As for the physical.....this is a tough question. Martial Arts are usually specific in their training. They present the student with values not usually associated with street people. Sometimes these differences are two languages and the Martial artist is the one that suffers. Martial Arts usually presents the student with a &#8220;proper distance&#8221; that that particular art takes place in. That distance is usually different in self defense. And the speed is different. I believe a well trained Martial Artist has more speed or quickness than most, if not all, street hoods. However, and this is a big however, most Martil Artists are ill prepared for the swiftness of an initial attack. They have trouble regrouping after that first blitz because they are not used to the violent and unexpected timing.

Also, as the old saying goes, &#8220;if you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.&#8221; I don't think most Artists are well prepared for the determination of a dirty tactician. Ex cons, on the other hand &#8211; it's all they know.

I don't have any particular answers to how all this can be taught in a "course".  But I believe it should be.

Again, I apologize if I offended anyone with my last post.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 29, 2011)

Buka said:


> As for the training itself, it has been my experience that too many courses rely first and formost on battle, when they should be first focusing on escape and avoidance. A good course on self defense should also tailor itself to young males if, indeed, there a lot of young males as students. It should address ego, and how your ego can work against you, it should address &#8220;social behavior among young males&#8221; as opposed to real world suprise attack, and how to avoid both. Again, I think the emphasis should be on avoidance and recognizing the signs of social behavior and escalation.
> 
> I think a good course on self defense should cover physiology as well as the capacity one might or might not have to injure, maim or kill a fellow human being.
> 
> Also, as the old saying goes, &#8220;if you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.&#8221; I don't think most Artists are well prepared for the determination of a dirty tactician. Ex cons, on the other hand &#8211; it's all they know.


 
To begin, welcome to the board and thank you for your contribution to the thread 

I'd like to touch on some of the points you've made because I think they're valid take home points. I'll quote from my original post (so I don't have to type it all again);





> To begin with, most types of sport traing/competions revolve around some/most/all of the following considerations (be they TKD specific or a more general MMA).
> 
> Has a referee that enforces rules that both parties are required to abide by for the match.
> The match is in a well-lit, dry, level, soft venue.
> ...


 
And a SD course can make the same mistake as a sport-oriented course by failing to address these aspects of self-defense. As I've said before, *fighting isn't the plan, fighting is what you do when the plan fails.*


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 29, 2011)

Buka said:


> As for the training itself, it has been my experience that too many courses rely first and formost on battle, when they should be first focusing on escape and avoidance. A good course on self defense should also tailor itself to young males if, indeed, there a lot of young males as students. It should address ego, and how your ego can work against you, it should address social behavior among young males as opposed to real world suprise attack, and how to avoid both. Again, I think the emphasis should be on avoidance and recognizing the signs of social behavior and escalation.


Absolutely.  If all boys learned this lesson, prisons would probably be less densely populated.



Buka said:


> Again, I apologize if I offended anyone with my last post.


No offense taken from my end.   Glad you jumped in!

Daniel


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 30, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> ...
> 
> It doesn't matter to me how hands on it is; in my experience, such a format (seminar + annual refreshers) is insufficient to internalize techniques that you will need to use in a violent encounter.
> 
> Daniel


 
While I agree with the post above yours, and I don't think most of us would disagree, I also agree with you in that my understanding was the difference between fairly constant exposure in a dojo versus one training session followed by yearly or so followup training.

Please correct us if we are wrong, Kong Soo Do, so we can more corrrect discussion of your points.

EDIT:  Distractions at work and half brain dead; I didn't get to the end of the posts.  Thanks for your clarification.

BUKA - I am curious why women would need months of courses?  For the type of hands-on, 8-10 hours a day, I don't see anyone needing more based on gender.  I am asking as your comment seems sexist, and I don't really think you meant it to be. I just thought it might be worth clarifying before you got flamed.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 30, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> While I agree with the post above yours, and I don't think most of us would disagree, I also agree with you in that my understanding *was the difference between fairly constant exposure in a dojo versus one training session followed by yearly or so followup training.*


It doesn't even have to be in a dojo environment.  It can be regular training, perhaps with once a week or even once a month check up/refreshers.

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 11, 2011)

Outside of the dojo/dojang environment would be very beneficial.  I always encourage a wide variety of locals and circumstances.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Jul 11, 2011)

So. Howzabout we combine athletics and self-defense? I said this before.I have a drill wherein we practice knife disarms in rounds,vs single and multiple attackers (think Bull in the Ring and everyone surrounding the "bull" has a knife). The defender has to achieve "x" amount of disarms within a specific period of time....say 1- minute rounds (an ETERNITY uner those circumstances) repeated for say up to 5 rounds.I absolutely guarantee you that your students and anybody else will experience a sharp rise in knife disarming skills daily,and over a month's period of this drill? Insane increase in ability.Failure for the defender or attacker means punishment calisthenics.Result? You get in great shape,you learn knife disarms FAST,and this same principle applies flawlessly to maaany other SD scenarios.You can evade multiple knife wielding attackers and escape using this same principle.Etc. Etc.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 11, 2011)

When becoming an edged weapon instructor for Boatman's program, we had to run the gauntlet of knife-armed attackers.  By the time you were done, you were nothing but a big bruise from the middle of your forearm to the middle of your bicep.

During Ken Good's PCR program, who were thrown down so many times that massage was actually worked into the class on the fourth day because by then you were crawling into class!  These courses were even more painful than the Israeli instructor courses...and those were flat out brutal.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Jul 12, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> When becoming an edged weapon instructor for Boatman's program, we had to run the gauntlet of knife-armed attackers.  By the time you were done, you were nothing but a big bruise from the middle of your forearm to the middle of your bicep.
> 
> During Ken Good's PCR program, who were thrown down so many times that massage was actually worked into the class on the fourth day because by then you were crawling into class!  These courses were even more painful than the Israeli instructor courses...and those were flat out brutal.



Sounds like a combination of athleticism and self-defense techs to me,lolol.My classes aren't superbrutal,but we do have a specific requirement of the number of disarms per round that we shoot for. Did you guys have he same? Or was it so brutal that the main goal was to nail the disarm regardless?


----------



## Brian King (Jul 12, 2011)

Kong Soo Do wrote


> "His partner Sonny (don't remember last name)"



FYI Sonny Puzikas (who sometimes posts here on MT). 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 12, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> Sounds like a combination of athleticism and self-defense techs to me,lolol.My classes aren't superbrutal,but we do have a specific requirement of the number of disarms per round that we shoot for. Did you guys have he same? Or was it so brutal that the main goal was to nail the disarm regardless?



If the initial disarm failed the goal was to immediately do something else.  In the real world mistakes can, and will happen.  I've seen too many students fail the initial technique (whatever it may be) and then stop and want to 'reset' for the next go around.  Nope, on the street we can't ask for a 'do-over', we have to keep on till it is over and we've won.  

Mission = survival
Method = whatever it takes to accomplish the mission


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 12, 2011)

Brian said:


> Kong Soo Do wrote
> 
> 
> FYI Sonny Puzikas (who sometimes posts here on MT).
> ...



Thank you, that's him 

Guy has an arm about the girth of a pencil but can hit you in the chest hard enough to make you cave in on yourself!  He uses a whipping motion like a wet dish rag that just sticks and stings.  He popped a stocky SWAT guy in class as a demo, guy nearly crapped himself.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 12, 2011)

I wanted to add a link to some SD covers; http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148250/1782774


----------



## Lee Mainprize (Aug 11, 2011)

You'd have to say all things being equal the street fighter who is prepared and trains just for such is going to be able to deal with a real situation better just like the sports guy is going to kick the reality guys *** in the ring.

Me I am more of a sport fighter, I spar allot and enjoy it I train for me and can deal with 99% of attackers with my skills..that said I have trained reality based stuff too and close quarter combat but more for knowledge then my weekly training routine.

I enjoy the sport stuff more and am training for me not for the fights on the street.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 11, 2011)

Lee Mainprize said:


> You'd have to say all things being equal the street fighter who is prepared and trains just for such is going to be able to deal with a real situation better just like the sports guy is going to kick the reality guys *** in the ring.
> 
> Me I am more of a sport fighter, I spar allot and enjoy it I train for me and can deal with 99% of attackers with my skills..that said I have trained reality based stuff too and close quarter combat but more for knowledge then my weekly training routine.
> 
> I enjoy the sport stuff more and am training for me not for the fights on the street.



We have many training videos of inmates/convicts training each other in recreation yards, back loading docks etc.  In talking with many 'sport' people, particularly in the TKD sections on boards, I don't think they really have an idea of the level of brutality they would be facing nor the quickness of the attack.  They don't properly prepare for either.  This doesn't mean the 'sport' guy is a wimp.  As I've mentioned many times the 'sport' guy is usually tough and well conditioned and good at what they do i.e. sport fighting.  Unfortunately, sport training is detrimental (for all the reasons I've listed in this and other threads) to facing a sudden, brutal attack by a determined attacker bent on causing as much damage as possible in the shortest amount of time possible.

Someone training for both sport and reality needs to be able to instantly 'flip the switch' mentally in order to face a real world determined attacker rather than an opponent.  It is possible.  Many don't think it's possible to train for both linear and circular movements, yet I regularly switch back and forth between linear and circular movements whilst in the middle of an altercations as the situation dictates.  

And yes, a reality-only  guy would be at a disadvantage in the ring because he/she would suddenly find themselves in an environment that has arbitrarily enforced rules.  They'd likely injure the sport guy and be disqualified.

:uhyeah:


----------



## PeterSteeves (Oct 16, 2011)

I had an awesome time yesterday at a workshop held in California with Rory Miller. We spent a lot of time discussing, and a lot of time working physically with the topics of sudden, brutal attacks.

While I enjoyed it immensely, and his presentational style and information did mesh with my own life experiences, I am also curious about the opinions here from the MT forum folks. I tried to do a quick search for his name, but didn't initially find anything. So, if I can/should be redirected to such a thread, please let me know.  Otherwise, I'd be happy to contribute with some of the ideas that we covered in Rory's seminar.

Peter Steeves


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 22, 2011)

PeterSteeves said:


> I'd be happy to contribute with some of the ideas that we covered in Rory's seminar.
> 
> Peter Steeves



Please do


----------



## Buka (Oct 22, 2011)

Rory Miller is as good as it gets in real world self defense, and from keeping your butt out of trouble in the first place. He's a great educator, real top notch.


----------

