# What Is Reality Based Self-Defense?



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 2, 2015)

I thought I would start a thread similar to the "What Is TMA?" thread to hash out what exactly is Reality Based Self-Defense.  We are blessed here on MartialTalk with several individuals that practice and teach Reality Based Self-Defense and this would be a great opportunity to speak out about it as well as get input from other practitioners.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 2, 2015)

What is reality based and what it cover. IE, LEO's, security or general public, or all three?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 2, 2015)

Let's take a broad scope and discuss how it includes anyone practicing it. (civilians, security, LEO's, etc.)


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 2, 2015)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Let's take a broad scope and discuss how it includes anyone practicing it. (civilians, security, LEO's, etc.)



Yeah the reverse is the same  I would love to discuss it, not sure what it is exactly? Sorry, on 4g and not WiFi, I would Google Brian!


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 2, 2015)

Sorry, 3G plus, not on EE4g network, so I am limited with vids etc.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 2, 2015)

Just to get the ball rolling I have included a few links from some individuals on their opinion on what makes up a Reality Based Self-Defense system.

Here is what Sammy Franco wrote on his opinion of what makes up Reality Based Self Defense:
Reality Based Self-Defense Contemporary Fighting Arts

Jim Wagner opinion:
Jim Wagner Reality-Based Personal Protection

Chris St. Jaques opinion on what Reality Based Self Defense is:
Why Reality Based Training is Better


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 2, 2015)

Yeah, looks like I have been doing some of that myself in "verbal de-escalation" Nice post


----------



## Aiki Lee (Jan 2, 2015)

Well reality based self-defense would be any self-defense training that deals with potential dangers in your current environment as well as how to address the before and after of such confrontations. Whether or not you have the trappings of a traditional martial art or not is irrelevant in my opinion.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 2, 2015)

Todays RBSD can become Tomorrows TMA.... see Xingyiquan, Changquan, or anything ending in "itsu"

I know a RSBD guy and I trained with him briefly, it was Chinese Police/Military Sanda. It was based on drills that were based on real attacks. It also had strength training (all body weight) and striking training (hitting trees and walls), qinna and tuishou.... but there were no forms as you see in a TCMA. There was also a LOT of repetitive drills for kicks and punches... along the lines of throwing 300 snap kicks per leg per day kind of repetition.

What I found real interesting was the overt avoidance of anything that seemed or sounded traditional as it applies to terminology. I was specifically told there was no Qi involved but I got to tell you the description of how to get power in your punches was a lot like the description you get in Taijiquan and Xingyiquan.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 2, 2015)

To have a better understanding of what it is, we must often discuss what it is not: Rules (I would say there aren't any, but we all come to the table with our own set of rules, and so does your opponent!); Refs( I would say there are no refs, but somebody always has a buddy making sure you, or your opponent, wins); safety (you may have brought a knife to a gunfight) LOL


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

I still go for a hybrid that isn't a sport.


----------



## Buka (Jan 2, 2015)

To me, "reality based self defense" would be to train in **** that happens in a fight.


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 2, 2015)

Krav maga comes to mind.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 3, 2015)

Buka said:


> To me, "reality based self defense" would be to train in **** that happens in a fight.



everybody is claiming that though. Sport,traditional and rbsd


----------



## drop bear (Jan 3, 2015)

tkdwarrior said:


> Krav maga comes to mind.



ok then what separated krav from karate?


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 3, 2015)

Not krav maga but interesting points.


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> ok then what separated krav from karate?


Maybe its in their training methodologies. Karate or any traditional martial art trains in a strict formal way and real world application you will have to learn on your own, while krav maga trains in real/actual world situations. A short cut version of where you want to be.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 3, 2015)

I don't think anybody can actually predict what happens out there, just go on instinct a lot of the time, however flawed that may well be.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 3, 2015)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I thought I would start a thread similar to the "What Is TMA?" thread to hash out what exactly is Reality Based Self-Defense.  We are blessed here on MartialTalk with several individuals that practice and teach Reality Based Self-Defense and this would be a great opportunity to speak out about it as well as get input from other practitioners.



Cool. I like this topic… as it's an area, like many in the martial arts, where, although the term is well known enough, what it actually is isn't… which has lead to misunderstandings, and the usage of the term by groups that aren't actually doing RBSD itself. There are some good answers already, but I thought I might add to them a bit.



Transk53 said:


> What is reality based and what it cover. IE, LEO's, security or general public, or all three?



If we're going to get technical, then RBSD is pretty much just aimed at civilians… LEO's and security aren't actually concerned with self defence… their role is a bit different (law enforcement and security, funnily enough!), which leads to different contexts, different tactical approaches, different preferences, and so on. So while they will certainly have a very realistic combatives program or methodology (well, at least ideally), commonly as DefTac (Defensive Tactics) programs, or simply as combatives programs… which are often mistaken for RBSD, but actually aren't.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Just to get the ball rolling I have included a few links from some individuals on their opinion on what makes up a Reality Based Self-Defense system.
> 
> Here is what Sammy Franco wrote on his opinion of what makes up Reality Based Self Defense:
> Reality Based Self-Defense Contemporary Fighting Arts
> ...



Cool, I think they sum it up pretty well… especially Sammy's article in the beginning. The biggest issue I have with the others (mainly) is the heavy rhetoric of "you won't get this from anyone else!"… er, yeah, you will. There are many, many RBSD instructors around, all offering variations on a theme of what Jim and Chris there are offering… their approach is very much theirs, but what they're saying is unique to their approaches, well, just ain't. Richard Dmitri, Deane Lawler, Geoff Thompson, Marc McYoung, and many more are also offering the same type of thing… in many cases, better than some of both Jim's and Chris' approaches there, honestly… 



Himura Kenshin said:


> Well reality based self-defense would be any self-defense training that deals with potential dangers in your current environment as well as how to address the before and after of such confrontations. Whether or not you have the trappings of a traditional martial art or not is irrelevant in my opinion.



The first part, yep, definitely. The second part (whether or not there is the trappings of traditional martial arts), well… less so. If there are the trappings, then you've moved away from the "reality" part of the reality based… which is a grounding in the context and environment that the methods are expected to be applied in. In other words, if there are the trappings of a traditional martial art, it ain't an RBSD. 



Xue Sheng said:


> Todays RBSD can become Tomorrows TMA.... see Xingyiquan, Changquan, or anything ending in "itsu"



Well… no, actually. The closest you could say is that the combative systems of today become the "traditional combat systems" of tomorrow… RBSD is really a different beast (and I'm not getting into the idea of "itsu" being the ending there… ha!). As mentioned by Himura, and in the articles Brian linked above, RBSD are defined, as much as anything else, by the attention paid to things that are not the fighting aspects… martial arts, on the other hand, like combative systems, are concerned with the conflict itself.

In addition, you could very well argue (and, particularly in the case of the bulk of old Japanese systems… none of which end with "itsu"…) that the old, traditional martial arts aren't really, and weren't at the time, actually "combative" systems… teaching you to fight was not really the purpose, and if that was the aim, there are much better, faster ways to achieve that. Martial arts, in a traditional (particularly Japanese) sense were more about military education than (individual) fighting ability.



Xue Sheng said:


> I know a RSBD guy and I trained with him briefly, it was Chinese Police/Military Sanda. It was based on drills that were based on real attacks. It also had strength training (all body weight) and striking training (hitting trees and walls), qinna and tuishou.... but there were no forms as you see in a TCMA. There was also a LOT of repetitive drills for kicks and punches... along the lines of throwing 300 snap kicks per leg per day kind of repetition.



Yeah… that's not RBSD, that's a combatives system. Such things can be found in an RBSD system as well, but it doesn't get anywhere near the emphasis that it does in a combatives system, nor is there any real guarantee or necessity for such methods to be present at all. While RBSD do deal with the "conflict" portion, depending on the instructor, there might be a reasonable amount of material (more likely in the form of drills than "techniques"), there might be a few key concepts and principles (such as Richard Dmitri's "shredder" concept in his Senshido group), or there might be almost nothing… Deane Lawler, for example, in his R-SULT system has almost no physical "techniques" at all… just a particular cover he prefers (I'm honestly not fond of it… I have some feelings as to how it came about, and I'm just not over on it as an idea… it's a little contradictory to really be reliable), leaving the rest to whatever methods (striking, grappling, throwing etc) the students might have from their martial art study. In the last training seminar I did with him, there were BJJ guys, MMA guys, Krav Maga guys (and girls… can't miss Adori…), Ninjutsu guys, Karate guys, door staff, security personnel, and more. Rather than teach them all a brand new way of doing things, he simply let's them do what they already know… and allows what he teaches to fit in around that.



Xue Sheng said:


> What I found real interesting was the overt avoidance of anything that seemed or sounded traditional as it applies to terminology. I was specifically told there was no Qi involved but I got to tell you the description of how to get power in your punches was a lot like the description you get in Taijiquan and Xingyiquan.



Yeah, that's just a personal value system showing… and, while the same thing can be seen in RBSD, it isn't necessarily RBSD in and of itself.



Touch Of Death said:


> To have a better understanding of what it is, we must often discuss what it is not: Rules (I would say there aren't any, but we all come to the table with our own set of rules, and so does your opponent!); Refs( I would say there are no refs, but somebody always has a buddy making sure you, or your opponent, wins); safety (you may have brought a knife to a gunfight) LOL



Yeah… again, while those aspects do come into play in RBSD, they're not really unique to RBSD at all… no refs is anything that's not a sport… and everything you have listed there is only concerned with the "conflict" section… again, not even the main emphasis of RBSD… and, when it is, it's not even as cut and dried as you're making it out to be here. For example, when you mention "rules"… any good RBSD instructor will always point out that there are always rules… and a big part of the understanding of actual self defence, which RBSD is concerned with, you absolutely need to educate yourself on what those rules are, and how they will affect your likelihood to get into an altercation or not… which will change depending on where you are.

I'll put it this way… we can contrast two RBSD instructors… Richard Dmitri and Deane Lawler. Richard came out to Australia a number of years ago, and was presenting a series of seminars on his Senshido system, including covering verbal de-escalation. And Richard's method of verbal de-escalation was geared up largely to many areas of the US, where there was a real likelihood that the aggressor (or whoever you were de-escalating) would be armed… likely with a firearm. As a result, Richard advised an approach that was largely apologetic and submissive… in order to not further give the other guy a reason to escalate further and produce the weapon. Deane Lawler, who grew up in the rough Western suburbs of Sydney, when he saw that approach, noted that if such an approach was utilised where he grew up, it sent one simple message: "I'm weak, please attack me". The rules (social) in both places were very different… both advised de-escalation… but a lack of awareness of the "rules" in the situation can have you pick something that is simply not going to help… which goes against the idea of RBSD in the first place.



drop bear said:


> I still go for a hybrid that isn't a sport.



Then, well, you'd be wrong. For one thing, RBSD's aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, "hybrids"… some are certainly from the variety of experiences of the instructor in question, but that's not necessary or definitive. And "not sports"? There are many things that aren't sports that aren't RBSD's either… Krav Maga would be one… many Koryu would be another (and, so you know, many of those are just as much "hybrids" as anything else you can think of)… modern Ninjutsu systems… many Chinese systems… and many more.



Buka said:


> To me, "reality based self defense" would be to train in **** that happens in a fight.



Partially. It's also training for what happens before, and what happens after… and covers a lot more even in the "conflict" period than simply combative skills… if it deals with that much at all, really.



tkdwarrior said:


> Krav maga comes to mind.



Krav Maga is a modern combative system, not an RBSD. Hopefully by this point you're beginning to see why.



drop bear said:


> everybody is claiming that though. Sport,traditional and rbsd



Er… what? Nope. Combatives systems, sure… RBSD, not so much… sports? Again, highly context dependent. Traditional, the same.



tkdwarrior said:


>



This is Christopher Roberts, the successor to Richard Dmitri's Senshido system, and the most senior instructor in the organisation. Cool guy, and seriously knows his stuff. Richard has moved onto other things, but still gets involved in Senshido from time to time… although he leaves much of it in Christopher's hands these days.



tkdwarrior said:


>



Ah, Peter Sciarra… he teaches around here relatively frequently. Realistically, again, his ICS (Integrated Combat System) is a combatives system, not an RBSD system. Overall, he seems to be getting a fair bit of success… I have some issues with the way he does a few things, but not important enough to go into here. The main point is that this is not RBSD, it's very much combatives.



tkdwarrior said:


> Not krav maga but interesting points.



Yep, neither are Krav Maga, although what Peter does certainly has some similarities. His sporting base (wrestling and a few other things) also have quite a say in the way he presents things, of course.



tkdwarrior said:


> Maybe its in their training methodologies. Karate or any traditional martial art trains in a strict formal way and real world application you will have to learn on your own, while krav maga trains in real/actual world situations. A short cut version of where you want to be.



Well, training methodologies will be one of the largest differences between any two systems… Krav Maga grew out of the Israeli Military… so they tend towards more modern attacks, weapons, and tools (some of the stuff they do with a shovel is just wonderful to watch… ha!), and, as it's military, aggression is the keyword. That finds it's way into the training methods, the drills, the tactics, the application of technique, and so on. 



Transk53 said:


> I don't think anybody can actually predict what happens out there, just go on instinct a lot of the time, however flawed that may well be.



Well, if you just rely on instinct, that kinda defeats the very idea of having a method of training for the situation, don't you think? I mean… whether it's a martial art, a combative system, or an RBSD system, the whole idea of training is to give you some "in-built" skills that you can depend on, rather than rely on an instinct which might be inappropriate, or completely lacking in the moment.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 3, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Ah, Well, if you just rely on instinct, that kinda defeats the very idea of having a method of training for the situation, don't you think? I mean… whether it's a martial art, a combative system, or an RBSD system, the whole idea of training is to give you some "in-built" skills that you can depend on, rather than rely on an instinct which might be inappropriate, or completely lacking in the moment.



Yes from a technical viewpoint you are quite right, and instinct would defeat the purpose of the training. However, I must point out that I have not reality based training. So right or wrong, intelligent or dum, instinct has always been in my armoury. That coupled with other job based stuff and whatnot.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 3, 2015)

Okay. Reality based training isn't as common as might be thought, of course… but, so you know, there are a range of aspects that are designed specifically to create neural pathways (habits, what might take the place of "instinct", in a way), as well as methods of training within that instinct… what's hardwired, so to speak.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 3, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Okay. Reality based training isn't as common as might be thought, of course… but, so you know, there are a range of aspects that are designed specifically to create neural pathways (habits, what might take the place of "instinct", in a way), as well as methods of training within that instinct… what's hardwired, so to speak.



Really. Right I have to look at this a bit more deeper. Good information Chris, thankyou!


----------



## Buka (Jan 3, 2015)

I think Chris brings up a great point about "combatives", which would be different than reality based self defense (IMO). Military and LEO should probably go into the combatives discussion.

Might be easier/less confusing to discuss the thread that way. What do you guys think?


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 3, 2015)

Buka said:


> I think Chris brings up a great point about "combatives", which would be different than reality based self defense (IMO). Military and LEO should probably go into the combatives discussion.
> 
> Might be easier/less confusing to discuss the thread that way. What do you guys think?



Amen


----------



## drop bear (Jan 3, 2015)

Buka said:


> I think Chris brings up a great point about "combatives", which would be different than reality based self defense (IMO). Military and LEO should probably go into the combatives discussion.
> 
> Might be easier/less confusing to discuss the thread that way. What do you guys think?



depends who coined these terms and why. Which i have no idea about the history of.


----------



## LibbyW (Jan 3, 2015)

W.E. Fairbairn had some quite practical methods, or at least the army thought so when they recruited him. I liked his no nonsense attitude towards dealing with a possible opponent.
That said though, really anything that deals with Close Quarters Control (as opposed to Close Quarters Combat) will usually be reality based. Though nothing is ever flawless.
I thought Systema looked quite good until I saw all the auto-suggestive, touch-less take downs.
L


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2015)

LibbyW said:


> I thought Systema looked quite good until I saw all the auto-suggestive, touch-less take downs.



Must admit I've not seen them in Systema, who is doing that? I've seen one of George Dillman's instructors do the no touch KO, which was amazing in the way people fell for the patter, a good performance too lol but haven't heard of Systema doing the same.


----------



## LibbyW (Jan 3, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Must admit I've not seen them in Systema, who is doing that? I've seen one of George Dillman's instructors do the no touch KO, which was amazing in the way people fell for the patter, a good performance too lol but haven't heard of Systema doing the same.



I forget the guys name, but I'm sure he is a BIG name in Systema.
He can be seen in this video from 7.37





I couldn't really believe it at first, since everything else I've seen of Systema seems to have fairly decent (if not unorthodox) core work.
Still, I guess there is always one in every martial art.
L


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2015)

LibbyW said:


> I forget the guys name, but I'm sure he is a BIG name in Systema.
> He can be seen in this video from 7.37
> 
> 
> ...




That bit is seriously bizarre isn't it! I've never seen that before I must admit.  I'd really like to do that lol, imagine walking down the street when the sales are on and making people get out of your way  I bet though like the no touch KOs you have to be a 'master' and spend over thirty years practising and then only do it on certain students because it is 'so dangerous'.
Of course his BO could be so bad he does literally push them out of the way with the stench!


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 3, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> That bit is seriously bizarre isn't it! I've never seen that before I must admit.  I'd really like to do that lol, imagine walking down the street when the sales are on and making people get out of your way  I bet though like the no touch KOs you have to be a 'master' and spend over thirty years practising and then only do it on certain students because it is 'so dangerous'.
> Of course his BO could be so bad he does literally push them out of the way with the stench!



No Lynx then


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> No Lynx then



Doesn't look like it!
Apart from having a laugh at things like that it does always make me sigh too, it's what gives martial arts a bad name. When I saw that no touch KO at a seminar, it was after the same instructor had taught some really good self defence techniques then we were all called to watch while he and his students do the 'performance' and you have to ask why. It baffles me why good instructors will go for this fantasy type stuff. As with the video, there was some interesting things there I'd like to try but then you see that guy doing something that is so obviously fake. It had no place in the video, it has no place in martial arts.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 3, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Doesn't look like it!
> Apart from having a laugh at things like that it does always make me sigh too, it's what gives martial arts a bad name. When I saw that no touch KO at a seminar, it was after the same instructor had taught some really good self defence techniques then we were all called to watch while he and his students do the 'performance' and you have to ask why. It baffles me why good instructors will go for this fantasy type stuff. As with the video, there was some interesting things there I'd like to try but then you see that guy doing something that is so obviously fake. It had no place in the video, it has no place in martial arts.



Fine, if you say that, then I am comfortable that it is true  It baffles me too. Why concentrate on technique, if you not possess. I spent hours on a bag, because you have practice that of what is preached.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 3, 2015)

Buka said:


> I think Chris brings up a great point about "combatives", which would be different than reality based self defense (IMO). Military and LEO should probably go into the combatives discussion.
> 
> Might be easier/less confusing to discuss the thread that way. What do you guys think?



This is something that struck me after I logged off to go to bed last night… I feel that one of the biggest issues in terms of recognising what is actually RBSD is in the initial word, "reality"… which leads people to the assumption that anything "realistic" is therefore "reality-based", and, by extension, RBSD. Simply put, that's not the case.

Combatives systems are highly realistic. DefTac programs are highly realistic. Martial arts can be highly realistic, depending on the art, the training methodology, and the context. But none of them are RBSD systems. In short, "realistic" does not equal "reality based".

The distinction is in the methodology and context/emphasis. "Realistic", particularly in terms of combative systems, DefTac systems, and so forth, means that they will deal with realistic attacks (commonly meaning, or at least implying, modern attack methods, although I don't feel that's necessary), and has realistic responses to them. RBSD, on the other hand, is a way of addressing the realities of the larger context of self defence, which does encompass realistic attacks and responses, but is really more concerned with what happens beforehand, and the aftermath.

The difference, really, is the same as saying that all pork is bacon, rather than all bacon is pork.



drop bear said:


> depends who coined these terms and why. Which i have no idea about the history of.



So… you're arguing because you don't know, rather than arguing because you have better information? Okay… 

For the record, Jim Wagner claims to have coined the term "Reality Based Self Defence" in 1999, largely as a way to market his system (which he claimed, and still does, was the only "complete" self defence system in the world…) to the magazines etc… however, the concept already existed, and was being championed by people such as Geoff Thompson close to a decade beforehand… and, in my organisation, we'd been employing it since the mid-90's. We (and Geoff) didn't use the term until it gained popularity with Jim's marketing, but the concepts were already in circulation, so to speak.

The point is that RBSD is a specific categorisation, a particular approach and methodology… yes, it's realistic, but that's not the same as saying that anything "realistic" is RBSD.



LibbyW said:


> W.E. Fairbairn had some quite practical methods, or at least the army thought so when they recruited him. I liked his no nonsense attitude towards dealing with a possible opponent.
> That said though, really anything that deals with Close Quarters Control (as opposed to Close Quarters Combat) will usually be reality based. Though nothing is ever flawless.
> I thought Systema looked quite good until I saw all the auto-suggestive, touch-less take downs.
> L



Well, yeah, Fairbairn had a fair amount of realism to what he presented (well, in the main… his evocatively titled "Timetable of Death" was largely guesswork and hope, rather than having any basis in reality), but again, that's a combatives system, not an RBSD.


----------



## LibbyW (Jan 3, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> That bit is seriously bizarre isn't it! I've never seen that before I must admit.  I'd really like to do that lol, imagine walking down the street when the sales are on and making people get out of your way  I bet though like the no touch KOs you have to be a 'master' and spend over thirty years practising and then only do it on certain students because it is 'so dangerous'.
> Of course his BO could be so bad he does literally push them out of the way with the stench!



Haha, could you imagine that - "Yeah I lost the fight...guy stun like a skunk"
L


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 3, 2015)

Buka said:


> I think Chris brings up a great point about "combatives", which would be different than reality based self defense (IMO). Military and LEO should probably go into the combatives discussion.
> Might be easier/less confusing to discuss the thread that way. What do you guys think?



I think you may be right



Chris Parker said:


> This is something that struck me after I logged off to go to bed last night… I feel that one of the biggest issues in terms of recognising what is actually RBSD is in the initial word, "reality"… which leads people to the assumption that anything "realistic" is therefore "reality-based", and, by extension, RBSD. Simply put, that's not the case.
> 
> Combatives systems are highly realistic. DefTac programs are highly realistic. Martial arts can be highly realistic, depending on the art, the training methodology, and the context. But none of them are RBSD systems. In short, "realistic" does not equal "reality based".
> 
> ...



I was not sure I agreed with you at first but after thinking about it I do believe you are correct and that I need a definition as to what RSBD is supposed to be or a list of styles that are considered RBSD. From a CMA POV Xingyiquan was used by the Chinese military in WW II and Sanda is used today so that is most definitely combative which apparently does not make them RBSD... but I find myself also thinking of algebra where a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. Could it be possible that a combative could be an RBSD but an RSBD cannot be a combative? That is a legitimate question because at this point I am more than willing to admit I am not exactly sure what constitutes the label "RBSD


----------



## drop bear (Jan 3, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> So… you're arguing because you don't know, rather than arguing because you have better information? Okay…
> 
> For the record, Jim Wagner claims to have coined the term "Reality Based Self Defence" in 1999, largely as a way to market his system (which he claimed, and still does, was the only "complete" self defence system in the world…) to the magazines etc… however, the concept already existed, and was being championed by people such as Geoff Thompson close to a decade beforehand… and, in my organisation, we'd been employing it since the mid-90's. We (and Geoff) didn't use the term until it gained popularity with Jim's marketing, but the concepts were already in circulation, so to speak.
> 
> The point is that RBSD is a specific categorisation, a particular approach and methodology… yes, it's realistic, but that's not the same as saying that anything "realistic" is RBSD.



if its origins are vague then its meaning will be vague as well.

because everyone who invented it will claim they meant something different by it.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 3, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Must admit I've not seen them in Systema, who is doing that? I've seen one of George Dillman's instructors do the no touch KO, which was amazing in the way people fell for the patter, a good performance too lol but haven't heard of Systema doing the same.



not at all uncommon.


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 3, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> That bit is seriously bizarre isn't it! I've never seen that before I must admit.  I'd really like to do that lol, imagine walking down the street when the sales are on and making people get out of your way  I bet though like the no touch KOs you have to be a 'master' and spend over thirty years practising and then only do it on certain students because it is 'so dangerous'.
> Of course his BO could be so bad he does literally push them out of the way with the stench!


Hahahahaha! Exactly my thoughts


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 3, 2015)

You could call it stunk mi do.....the no touch but smell martial arts...imagine if you only had one of those in your army you would nearly be invincible.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 4, 2015)

tkdwarrior said:


> You could call it stunk mi do.....the no touch but smell martial arts...imagine if you only had one of those in your army you would nearly be invincible.


That martial art would be headed by Mi Sok Pong.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 4, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> I think you may be right
> 
> 
> 
> I was not sure I agreed with you at first but after thinking about it I do believe you are correct and that I need a definition as to what RSBD is supposed to be or a list of styles that are considered RBSD. From a CMA POV Xingyiquan was used by the Chinese military in WW II and Sanda is used today so that is most definitely combative which apparently does not make them RBSD... but I find myself also thinking of algebra where a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. Could it be possible that a combative could be an RBSD but an RSBD cannot be a combative? That is a legitimate question because at this point I am more than willing to admit I am not exactly sure what constitutes the label "RBSD



Hey, Xue,

Not quite… it's more that an RBSD can contain aspects of a combatives, or combatives like approach, but a combatives system can't be an RBSD system itself.



drop bear said:


> if its origins are vague then its meaning will be vague as well.
> 
> because everyone who invented it will claim they meant something different by it.



Where did you read that the origins are vague? The term itself was coined and popularised by Jim Wagner, but the concepts that he gave the moniker of RBSD to predated his usage of the term… there's nothing in that that indicates that either the name or it's origins are vague, or with the  meaning thereof.

The catch is, really, when the term is used when it's not accurate… when people think that, because they're doing something they consider "realistic", they're doing RBSD… but that's the same with any term… and doesn't make the actual meaning vague or unclear, just misused.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 4, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey, Xue,
> 
> Not quite… it's more that an RBSD can contain aspects of a combatives, or combatives like approach, but a combatives system can't be an RBSD system itself.



*Absolutely* and likewise an RBSD system because of it's limitations is not a full on military combatives system. It can contain aspects of combatives but because of it being geared towards self defense/personal protection in a modern setting and trying to play within the customs and rule of the law of the country it is from it falls short of being a true combatives program. 

RBSD is perfect for civilians wishing for a program that will give them personal protection skills, legal knowledge, pre-conflict, conflict and post conflict skills.  When done right.

Defensive Tactics and Handcuffing skills are ideal for LEO's based on what they will need for their job.  Their job places them in situations different than what an everyday citizen would encounter.  Where a citizen can leave a dangerous situation by choice an LEO in general will have to handle the situation. 

Combatives when geared towards extreme violence generally is perfect for military units though it certainly can be beneficial for LEO's and civilians in a moment of violence provided they can stay within the letter of the law. 

What we do have out there as Chris alluded to is a lot of Combatives systems now using the moniker of Reality Based Self Defense without understanding what RBSD is.  We also have some RBSD people trying to have it both ways and present the image of a Combatives program.  So we definitely have some confusion in the martial world regarding this topic. 

Then we have the issue of RBSD training can be different based on regional characteristics and social customs.

*This is a very interesting topic!*


----------



## drop bear (Jan 4, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Where did you read that the origins are vague? The term itself was coined and popularised by Jim Wagner, but the concepts that he gave the moniker of RBSD to predated his usage of the term… there's nothing in that that indicates that either the name or it's origins are vague, or with the meaning thereof.



i did a google look. i cant find anything that says jim Wagner invented the term. I cant even find a history on it. If it predated him then who invented it and what did they mean by the term?

which is where i am getting the idea that it is vague.

i used to do zen do kai. Which was called a hybrid at the time that played around with self defence concepts rather than traditional ones(sort of) anything that would be called a rbsd now was a hybrid then. 

not sure when that changed.

so i am really not sure how we have pinned down a syllabus.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 4, 2015)

Sorry not a hybrid. They were called freestyle.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 4, 2015)

Okay now the thread makes sense. Very interesting indeed!


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 4, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Sorry not a hybrid. They were called freestyle.



What was, RBSD? Sorry I missed the point with this post


----------



## K-man (Jan 4, 2015)

Just to muddy the water a little. Like many other topics, this is not black and white and the definitions will vary according to the laws of the different countries. In past discussions people have claimed that their martial art provided them with 'self defence' when in reality the link to self defence was at the very best, tenuous. I think, for those of us with decades of involvement in the martial arts, if you turned the clock back twenty years or so we would all have claimed we were learning self defence. Heck, that's exactly why I took up boxing back in the 50s. I was being bullied at school. Understanding changes with time and experience.

So just as there is an overlap of TMA, Sport MA and Self Defence that will vary for each individual person involved, so is there an overlap between RBSD and Combatives. With the prevalence of guns and knives in countries like the US there will be more overlap than in places like the UK and Australia where if you avoid certain trouble spots you are unlikely to encounter a gun or a knife in your life.

Then, you can add your other training back into the equation. If someone, for example, has an extensive background in TMA it is likely that they will have many of the same skills required in RBSD. Sure, the training methodology is very different and it will take you longer in a TMA to get to the same level of street effectiveness, but the underlying goal is the same. If we are ever physically threatened we will have the ability to avoid a bad situation or defend against a physical assault and get home safely.

Now guys like Chris will argue, quite validly, that a number of TMAs, especially the ones he studies, have nothing to do with self defence. I would argue that there are other TMAs were self defence is a major part of the training. I would also contend that that training can contain a significant element of RBSD. Some of us teach more than one MA. How do I explain to one group or the other that their training is not as effective to defend themselves on the street? Quite simply, I don't. In fact with the problems of everyone having times mixed up in the rush before Christmas, I invited the Krav guys who couldn't make the regular training session to come to the Karate class. For me the training is almost the same and the outcome is also the same.

In other threads we have had people with no knowledge of kata talking about how it is a total waste of time. Fine. No problem there. If you don't want to learn kata, do something like Krav. No kata there ... or is there? When I teach combinations in Krav, where do a lot of the combinations come from? My guys practise kata without even knowing it.

Where I think there is a huge problem in most training, and I don't claim to have overcome it, is how to test it for effectiveness. Now in Krav you put on gloves and some protective gear and have a bit of a slogfest, not unlike what you might see in low grade MMA. Is it useful? Sure. It gets you used to hitting and being hit but it doesn't provide you with the experience to deal with adrenalin, and it still doesn't make you 'bullet proof'. In most karate places they do their sport type sparring. To me that is pretty much the same. In BJJ you are working to submit someone. Same, same. In our karate it's probably a blend of the Krav and grappling with less striking and kicking, but again, it is not being full on tested. You can make the training as realistic as you like but it will never be the same as the real situation.

The point was made in a previous post that 'realistic' training is not the same as 'RB' training. I'm not sure I agree totally with that sentiment, again, a matter of degree, not black and white. 'Realistic' training has to be in context. Realistic training in say Kendo, probably has nothing to do with 'reality' in a street context where realistic training in Krav has a huge amount in common with RBSD.

Just some thoughts.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 4, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> What was, RBSD? Sorry I missed the point with this post



that rbsd are probably evolutions of the old freestyle concept


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 4, 2015)

I would not quite say that drop bear.  Reality Based Self Defense is it's own beast.  Certainly some previous eclectic/hybrid systems could fit in with the Reality Based Self Defense model but only if they fit the mold.


----------



## K-man (Jan 4, 2015)

drop bear said:


> i used to do zen do kai. Which was called a hybrid at the time that played around with self defence concepts rather than traditional ones(sort of) anything that would be called a rbsd now was a hybrid then.
> 
> not sure when that changed.


You must have been a baby karate-ka back then. 

I think you didn't understand what ZDK was attempting with their freestyle concept. When these guys broke away from Goju Kai they were principally setting up an organisation to supply the security industry. They took out all the content that they considered to be not valid training such as kata and put in a lot of other stuff that was of interest to them such as traditional weaponry.  You might be interested to know that they have reintroduced kata to their training and are also starting to train the bunkai.

Freestyle ZDK was never a hybrid. It was pretty much Goju Kai karate without kata and without Japanese terminology. I would consider that what they developed was an attempt at a reality based system although they still did do a lot of competition as well. That overflowed into other training where Bob Jones was the first in Australia to introduce kickboxing and it is still a big part of his organisation.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 4, 2015)

I would agree K-man that there is cross over between TMA's, Combatives and Reality Based Self Defense systems.  This of course all would depend on the instructor and their training, knowledge, teaching, etc.


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 4, 2015)

http://knockouts.pw/?p=665 

If this is not what rbsd is, I do not know what is.


----------



## Flatfish (Jan 4, 2015)

tkdwarrior said:


> http://knockouts.pw/?p=665
> 
> If this is not what rbsd is, I do not know what is.




I have a feeling that the punches and kicks to the head after the guy is down could land you in a world of legal trouble if you don't have your running shoes laced up tightly.....


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 4, 2015)

Well...i would rather be sure than not. I prefer deescalation and even taking a hit than engagement. It is always best to stay away from trouble but if left with no choice.....


----------



## Flatfish (Jan 4, 2015)

tkdwarrior said:


> Well...i would rather be sure than not. I prefer deescalation and even taking a hit than engagement. It is always best to stay away from trouble but if left with no choice.....




Oh, understood and understandable, unfortunately ( just based on my research into the topic, would love to hear other opinions....), i would venture to guess that the law would look at this in a lot of cases as crossing the line from self defense into assault.    The guy is down, the immediate threat is gone, you have time to get away......but you don't.....


----------



## drop bear (Jan 4, 2015)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I would not quite say that drop bear.  Reality Based Self Defense is it's own beast.  Certainly some previous eclectic/hybrid systems could fit in with the Reality Based Self Defense model but only if they fit the mold.



depending on the history of rbsd. 

hey we could have a linage war. They are always fun.


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 4, 2015)

I do not advocate this type of violence, hitting when you have the guy down already, if it were me I would have resorted to a control lock/hold or used large cable straps, if I had them, on the perp. The attacker should have thought about the consequences first before he did anything foolish. For me he had it coming.


----------



## K-man (Jan 5, 2015)

Flatfish said:


> I have a feeling that the punches and kicks to the head after the guy is down could land you in a world of legal trouble if you don't have your running shoes laced up tightly.....


I would say that Krav crosses a few boundaries. It's beauty lies in its versatility. Assuming you have been taught correctly you may have the option to avoid trouble, you might be able to use deescalation techniques, you may be able to fend off, or restrain or a not to subtle thump.  That more or less takes care of the ordinary self defence part. Then we get into the stuff of the video where there is a significant threat to your safety. You are able to use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself. At this time there are no absolutes. Nothing says you can do this but you mustn't do that. At the end of the day you may have to justify your actions in court. If you have witnesses that back up your case it is highly unlikely to proceed. If you have used excessive violence then tough titties. You might even go to jail. That is why it is so stupid for people to engage in violence if they don't need to.

With Krav you can go further into Combatives if you like. Do you have to use everything you are taught? Of course not but let's say you are facing kidnap by a group of armed thugs. Are you going to apologise if you stomp on someone's neck? At that stage your life is in danger. If you get into their car there's more than a fair chance it is a one way trip. 

Mate, if your doing martial arts to keep fit and impress your friends, cool. Hopefully you won't be putting your life or liberty on the line. But if you are a serious martial artist training to defend yourself on the street then you had better be trained to do what needs to be done and be able to recognise the point where you stop damaging your attacker. We've discussed the kick to the head in other threads. Can you justify kicking someone in the head? Sure. Are there times when it could land you in trouble? Sure. The big question is, can you tell the difference?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 5, 2015)

tkdwarrior said:


> http://knockouts.pw/?p=665
> 
> If this is not what rbsd is, I do not know what is.



interestingly. I was having this discussion with Chris and he suggests rbsd is not about wholesale kicking butt.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 5, 2015)

K-man said:


> I would say that Krav crosses a few boundaries. It's beauty lies in its versatility. Assuming you have been taught correctly you may have the option to avoid trouble, you might be able to use deescalation techniques, you may be able to fend off, or restrain or a not to subtle thump.  That more or less takes care of the ordinary self defence part. Then we get into the stuff of the video where there is a significant threat to your safety. You are able to use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself. At this time there are no absolutes. Nothing says you can do this but you mustn't do that. At the end of the day you may have to justify your actions in court. If you have witnesses that back up your case it is highly unlikely to proceed. If you have used excessive violence then tough titties. You might even go to jail. That is why it is so stupid for people to engage in violence if they don't need to.
> 
> With Krav you can go further into Combatives if you like. Do you have to use everything you are taught? Of course not but let's say you are facing kidnap by a group of armed thugs. Are you going to apologise if you stomp on someone's neck? At that stage your life is in danger. If you get into their car there's more than a fair chance it is a one way trip.
> 
> Mate, if your doing martial arts to keep fit and impress your friends, cool. Hopefully you won't be putting your life or liberty on the line. But if you are a serious martial artist training to defend yourself on the street then you had better be trained to do what needs to be done and be able to recognise the point where you stop damaging your attacker. We've discussed the kick to the head in other threads. Can you justify kicking someone in the head? Sure. Are there times when it could land you in trouble? Sure. The big question is, can you tell the difference?



i would be concened about training that into muscle memory


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 5, 2015)

tkdwarrior said:


> http://knockouts.pw/?p=665
> 
> If this is not what rbsd is, I do not know what is.


Based on just the video what exactly is it that makes it reality based? The techniques? The setting? or the attire?


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 5, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Based on just the video what exactly is it that makes it reality based? The techniques? The setting? or the attire?


I guess you could answer that question.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 5, 2015)

Okay...



drop bear said:


> i did a google look. i cant find anything that says jim Wagner invented the term. I cant even find a history on it. If it predated him then who invented it and what did they mean by the term?
> 
> which is where i am getting the idea that it is vague.



You're not following what I've said… in fact, you've gotten it kinda backwards. The term Reality Based Self Defence (RBSD) was coined by Jim Wagner in 1999… he then popularised it in a large number of magazines and publications, most notably Black Belt magazine, which is where it really started to take off… however, what he was teaching, and now referring to as RBSD, was already being done (but not with that name) by others, such as Geoff Thompson at least half a decade prior.

So, to be clear, those that started developing and presenting these concepts didn't use the term RBSD initially… some simply referred to it as "defence training" or similar, others gave it a system name, like anything else, and others didn't really name it at all. Jim was the guy that simply gave it a name… and, honestly, Jim's biggest talent is for marketing, using a number of pseudonyms, as well as his real name in order to get his messages and offerings out there, and this is one of his biggest contributions. That's not to diminish his actual programs and methods, but they're not quite in the same league as others, I feel.

Honestly, there's nothing vague about it… we know where the name comes from, we know who named it, we know what he defined it as (which has been covered by myself, and in the articles Brian linked, early in the thread)… there's really no confusion on that side. The only confusion is when people apply it where it's not actually accurate.



drop bear said:


> i used to do zen do kai. Which was called a hybrid at the time that played around with self defence concepts rather than traditional ones(sort of) anything that would be called a rbsd now was a hybrid then.



I'm quite familiar with ZDK… it wasn't a "hybrid", at least initially… there were changes later, which made it more so, but that was really not it's original form or intention. But, that said, no, an RBSD today is not a hybrid either… so the idea that "hybrids" of days past were RBSD's is not accurate at all.



drop bear said:


> not sure when that changed.



Er… it didn't.



drop bear said:


> so i am really not sure how we have pinned down a syllabus.



We haven't "pinned down a syllabus", because there isn't one. Each system, or approach of RBSD will have their own… the same way you can't pin down a Kung Fu syllabus… there are many many variants. However, there are certain things that are always there… and those we have pinned down.



drop bear said:


> Sorry not a hybrid. They were called freestyle.



Which is completely different, and was meant to imply "not tied to a prescribed method", hence the initial eschewing of kata and other training devices. Of course, they've smartened up again these days, and brought it back… 



drop bear said:


> that rbsd are probably evolutions of the old freestyle concept



Er, no. No real connection at all, actually. About the only thing you could say that they have in common is a non-traditional approach… other than that, well… no.



tkdwarrior said:


> http://knockouts.pw/?p=665
> 
> If this is not what rbsd is, I do not know what is.



Then, for what it's worth, that is not RBSD. It's Krav Maga… a military-derived Israeli combatives system… as has been detailed in this thread already… again, "realistic" is not the same as Reality Based… 



tkdwarrior said:


> Well...i would rather be sure than not. I prefer deescalation and even taking a hit than engagement. It is always best to stay away from trouble but if left with no choice.....



I'm not sure what you're saying here… you'd rather continue to pummel the other guy as you'd rather "be sure than not", but you prefer de-escalation and taking a hit? You're then talking about not having a choice… weren't you, in another thread, talking about how you kicked a guy (who'd already been rather beaten by a number of others) with steel capped boots, talking about how well you think it worked? Hmm… 



drop bear said:


> depending on the history of rbsd.
> 
> hey we could have a linage war. They are always fun.



And, again, no. You've been given the history, such as it is… it's a concept that came out of the 90's, and hit it's stride in the first decade of this century. There have been a number of notable teachers and forms, which cover a wide range of approaches, but all have a similar overarching methodology and set of concepts. However, outside of particular streams (such as Senshido), there is no "lineage" at all… just a range of guys (and gals) teaching.



tkdwarrior said:


> I do not advocate this type of violence, hitting when you have the guy down already, if it were me I would have resorted to a control lock/hold or used large cable straps, if I had them, on the perp. The attacker should have thought about the consequences first before he did anything foolish. For me he had it coming.



Yeah, again you're going in multiple directions in this post… you don't advocate it, talk about the other guy being a "perp" (unless you're an LEO, he's not a "perp"… and, if you are, you're dealing with a different context to self defence [civilian]), then say that he "should have thought about the consequences… he had it coming"?!? At that point you'd seemingly had him down, and applied straps or a hold… what did he then "have coming"?

I don't know if this is a language issue, but it's not really clear what you're meaning, or which side of any of this you're intending to be on… 



K-man said:


> I would say that Krav crosses a few boundaries. It's beauty lies in its versatility. Assuming you have been taught correctly you may have the option to avoid trouble, you might be able to use deescalation techniques, you may be able to fend off, or restrain or a not to subtle thump.  That more or less takes care of the ordinary self defence part.



Hey mate, can you detail what Krav's de-escalation approach or methodology is?



drop bear said:


> interestingly. I was having this discussion with Chris and he suggests rbsd is not about wholesale kicking butt.



It's not.



drop bear said:


> i would be concened about training that into muscle memory



That's a matter for the training methodology.


----------



## Flatfish (Jan 5, 2015)

K-man said:


> Mate, if your doing martial arts to keep fit and impress your friends, cool. Hopefully you won't be putting your life or liberty on the line. But if you are a serious martial artist training to defend yourself on the street then you had better be trained to do what needs to be done and be able to recognise the point where you stop damaging your attacker. We've discussed the kick to the head in other threads. Can you justify kicking someone in the head? Sure. Are there times when it could land you in trouble? Sure. The big question is, can you tell the difference?




I absolutely agree with this and with the necessity to use whatever if your life is in danger etc. but I maintain what I said about the videos which in many instances show the "bad guy" getting hit and stomped on after he is already down, rolling on the floor and covering himself. That would most likely be taken as excessive force and the " good guy" did not recognize the stopping point.

Could there be a scenario where getting another kick in to make sure he stays down would be appropriate? Sure, i.e. multiple attackers etc.

I think we mostly agree here....


----------



## K-man (Jan 5, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey mate, can you detail what Krav's de-escalation approach or methodology is?


Nope!  

It has now gotten to the stage where there are so many different brands of Krav Maga, it's hard to even trace some of their links back to Imi Lichtenfeld or even Israel, that there is very little of anything that is 'Krav', but that's a whole other discussion.

So, what I actually said was ..._ "Assuming you have been taught properly ... "_ , by which I meant, anyone teaching this type of stuff has a responsibility to ensure, as much as possible, that people learning to cause maximum destruction of a fellow human being should try other avenues first before going _ballistic_.

Which leads nicely to ..



drop bear said:


> i would be concened about training that into muscle memory



'Muscle memory' is really motor learning, nothing to actually do with the muscles learning to do anything. More it is the ability to respond to a situation, performing a response without conscious effort. 

To put that into context, someone throws a punch. I have been taught many different responses to that so which response do I produce? The answer is, if I have to think about it it's probably too late (which is why I don't teach blocks), so possibly none of them. I will respond instinctively, possibly by throwing my arms up, possibly by moving my head ... who knows? Only after I have responded (survival response) will my MA training kick in and instinctively I will react from the situation I am in. So does that mean that because I have trained a scenario through to a neck crank the kid who attacked me has to die? Obviously not. The scenario drill is just that. The ability to move seamlessly from one technique to the next as required to such a time that the threat is no longer there.

...

Which then leads on to what I look at as an essential difference between pre-arranged drills and reality based response. If I am teaching (karate) a combination of techniques from a kata I will start with what the combination means to me. The guys can drill that and if it works for them, fine. However, if it obviously isn't working for them we go back a step and try to find something that flows for them and we drill that. 

In my Krav class it is different again. I might start of with an impromptu attack, say a left jab, right cross. So I might say, "parry with your right hand and step in and to your right, trap his left arm above the elbow with the left hand and hit him with the right on the side of the head". Now four out of five guys will start doing that drill but one will be left stranded. The combination will come and he'll react one way or another and step to the left. I'll stop the drill for him immediately and modify it for him so he is moving to the left. For him there is no way, in any reasonable time frame, that I can teach him the original drill to a level that he could use it in a real fight. His instinct is to move the other way so why would I want to change that? I want to build on what he does without thinking. A point here too, I will be 99% sure in an unrehearsed situation if his partner attacked with a right jab, left cross, he would still move to the left.

I think this is possibly the biggest difference between a martial arts school that teaches a response to a given attack and a reality based self defence class that teaches you to respond instinctively to what is happening around you.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 5, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> It's not.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> except that you find me a rbsd and i will find them wholesale kicking butt.


----------



## K-man (Jan 5, 2015)

drop bear said:


> except that you find me a rbsd and i will find them wholesale kicking butt.


Sure, that is part of the training, but in reality, outside of guys in police or security, how many guys trained in martial arts do you find dishing out that kind of violence on the street? I'll guarantee that the first time it happens (and is caught on CCTV) and is deemed inappropriate you'll have every do-gooder in the country calling for RBSD to be banned. Yet in the meantime I'd be sure there would be hundreds of occasions where people with this type of training have defused a situation without a physical altercation.

Fighting is a very small part of 'self defence' and it is an equally small part of 'RBSD'.

Edit .. with my comment above with police and security, I didn't mean to imply they use excessive violence, just that your average martial artist has little need of his martial skills.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 5, 2015)

K-man said:


> Nope!
> 
> It has now gotten to the stage where there are so many different brands of Krav Maga, it's hard to even trace some of their links back to Imi Lichtenfeld or even Israel, that there is very little of anything that is 'Krav', but that's a whole other discussion.



Okay, then, how about in the Krav Maga that you teach? 



K-man said:


> So, what I actually said was ..._ "Assuming you have been taught properly ... "_ , by which I meant, anyone teaching this type of stuff has a responsibility to ensure, as much as possible, that people learning to cause maximum destruction of a fellow human being should try other avenues first before going _ballistic_.



Okay… to me, that sounds like it's really up to the interpretation of the individual instructor, yeah? 



K-man said:


> Which then leads on to what I look at as an essential difference between pre-arranged drills and reality based response. If I am teaching (karate) a combination of techniques from a kata I will start with what the combination means to me. The guys can drill that and if it works for them, fine. However, if it obviously isn't working for them we go back a step and try to find something that flows for them and we drill that.
> 
> In my Krav class it is different again. I might start of with an impromptu attack, say a left jab, right cross. So I might say, "parry with your right hand and step in and to your right, trap his left arm above the elbow with the left hand and hit him with the right on the side of the head". Now four out of five guys will start doing that drill but one will be left stranded. The combination will come and he'll react one way or another and step to the left. I'll stop the drill for him immediately and modify it for him so he is moving to the left. For him there is no way, in any reasonable time frame, that I can teach him the original drill to a level that he could use it in a real fight. His instinct is to move the other way so why would I want to change that? I want to build on what he does without thinking. A point here too, I will be 99% sure in an unrehearsed situation if his partner attacked with a right jab, left cross, he would still move to the left.



Hmm… to be honest, that's not too dissimilar to many traditional systems… and, although it can be seen as more "realistic" (although I wouldn't necessarily class it that way… simply a different approach to structuring a lesson based on the individual, and differing sets of values between the systems), but that's not the same as "reality based"… I mean, reality based can also be done with pre-arranged drills, for the record… as well as obviously a range of other methods.



K-man said:


> I think this is possibly the biggest difference between a martial arts school that teaches a response to a given attack and a reality based self defence class that teaches you to respond instinctively to what is happening around you.



Yeah… again, not really a difference… nor really a definitive trait of RBSD methods… one of the points of kata is to give the tools to instinctively respond to what's happening around you, by giving you the particular skills and tactics to suit whatever you might come across.



drop bear said:


> except that you find me a rbsd and i will find them wholesale kicking butt.



Sure… but that's only going to be part of the story… and not even the primary part in most cases. I mean, if you look for videos of Rory Miller, for example, much of what you'll find will be not so much "kicking butt", as talking about a range of concepts and realities… and, even the clips you'll find of him physically, it won't be so much "kicking butt" as giving a physical response option. Same with Deane Lawler… Marc McYoung… much of Geoff Thompson's material is specific drills, rather than "kicking butt"… you won't see much from myself and my organisation either… especially on our RBSD side of things… 

The point is that while RBSD can contain "kicking butt", but that in no way makes it what they're about… that's a distinction that needs to be understood.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 5, 2015)

Here's one guy's take on things:

Blitz Martial Arts bull View topic - My view on RBSD vs TMA long post 

That ought to ensure this thread goes on for another 50 pages or so.


----------



## MJS (Jan 5, 2015)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I thought I would start a thread similar to the "What Is TMA?" thread to hash out what exactly is Reality Based Self-Defense.  We are blessed here on MartialTalk with several individuals that practice and teach Reality Based Self-Defense and this would be a great opportunity to speak out about it as well as get input from other practitioners.



I'm a bit late to this, but I'll toss in my .02.  

IMHO, I'd say RBSD is the bare bones of Martial Arts.  If we look at most arts, we'll see pretty much the same things: tradition, uniforms, kata, numerous stances, etc.  This of course, is perfectly fine.  As I've said a million times, everyone trains for their own reasons.  

If we look at RBSD, we're most likely not going to see the same format of what we see in a TMA.  We're probably not going to see the typical gi, no kata, not much, if any tradition...basically, the focus will be on fighting and SD.  Probably rare that we see people standing in a stationary stance, throwing punches and kicks.  Instead, it'll probably be more boxing oriented/MMA ish.  You'll most likely see a well rounded program of all fighting ranges, including weapons.  

I would say that the people you'll most likely see training in something like this, have a serious focus on SD.  Quick, simple, effective things, that don't require a ton of memorization, practice, etc.  This isn't to say that those students don't have to practice, but the mindset is different.  Take the typical Kenpo school.  100+ techs, with various extensions on those techs.  The RBSD place will most likely focus on a much more condensed list of things, that can be applied to various encounters.  

Again, this isn't to bash TMAs.  I know many people, myself included, that came from a TMA school or still train at one, and are more than capable of defending themselves.  I'm simply saying that RBSD will give you the bare bones stuff, much quicker, and will most likely produce people who are capable of defending themselves, much faster.


----------



## MJS (Jan 5, 2015)

drop bear said:


> everybody is claiming that though. Sport,traditional and rbsd



Of course, but what they say, and what really is happening, are 2 different things. LOL.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 5, 2015)

K-man said:


> Sure, that is part of the training, but in reality, outside of guys in police or security, how many guys trained in martial arts do you find dishing out that kind of violence on the street? I'll guarantee that the first time it happens (and is caught on CCTV) and is deemed inappropriate you'll have every do-gooder in the country calling for RBSD to be banned. Yet in the meantime I'd be sure there would be hundreds of occasions where people with this type of training have defused a situation without a physical altercation.
> 
> Fighting is a very small part of 'self defence' and it is an equally small part of 'RBSD'.
> 
> Edit .. with my comment above with police and security, I didn't mean to imply they use excessive violence, just that your average martial artist has little need of his martial skills.



yeah but that does not define a rbsd. I would have a different idea of what would be considered" focused on de escalation"than what i tend to see in a rbsd system.

have we pinned one down yet? I think jim Wagner was mentioned as the popularizer of the concept.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 5, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> You're not following what I've said… in fact, you've gotten it kinda backwards. The term Reality Based Self Defence (RBSD) was coined by Jim Wagner in 1999… he then popularised it in a large number of magazines and publications, most notably Black Belt magazine, which is where it really started to take off… however, what he was teaching, and now referring to as RBSD, was already being done (but not with that name) by others, such as Geoff Thompson at least half a decade prior.



ok so i just looked through the Tim Wagner link. Seeing as he apparently coined the term.

and that still reads like non sport hybrid. Why would Tim Wagner's system be a rbsd and not a combatives?

even zdk with the kata might squeak into that definition


----------



## drop bear (Jan 5, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Sure… but that's only going to be part of the story… and not even the primary part in most cases. I mean, if you look for videos of Rory Miller, for example, much of what you'll find will be not so much "kicking butt", as talking about a range of concepts and realities… and, even the clips you'll find of him physically, it won't be so much "kicking butt" as giving a physical response option. Same with Deane Lawler… Marc McYoung… much of Geoff Thompson's material is specific drills, rather than "kicking butt"… you won't see much from myself and my organisation either… especially on our RBSD side of things…
> 
> The point is that while RBSD can contain "kicking butt", but that in no way makes it what they're about… that's a distinction that needs to be understood.



when i say kicking butt i mean engaging in physical response. How to punch how to kick that sort of thing. Like pretty much all martial arts.

do you mean they have a focus on tactical over technical?


----------



## K-man (Jan 5, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Okay, then, how about in the Krav Maga that you teach?


I did read it somewhere. It's about 4th or 5th generation and tailored for what you may encounter here. Unlike some styles, it makes no pretence of what it is.



Chris Parker said:


> Okay… to me, that sounds like it's really up to the interpretation of the individual instructor, yeah?


Exactly. I teach the same to both groups. In my early days it was never mentioned, but back then we had what we used to call common sense and we didn't have lawyers standing on every street corner waiting to help the 'victim'.



Chris Parker said:


> Hmm… to be honest, that's not too dissimilar to many traditional systems… and, although it can be seen as more "realistic" (although I wouldn't necessarily class it that way… simply a different approach to structuring a lesson based on the individual, and differing sets of values between the systems), but that's not the same as "reality based"… I mean, reality based can also be done with pre-arranged drills, for the record… as well as obviously a range of other methods.


May well be, but then I'm not the one trying to precisely define the term, mainly because I think it is an arbitrary definition. When we were trying to discuss TMAs vs whatever, it just didn't work because TMA as a concept is a very broad term. The OP, for reasons known only to himself, refused to define his concept of TMA so discussion became pointless. This is really the same. To really discuss RBSD you have to define it, which is really what Brian is asking us to do. Sort of like asking, "What is a Tree?" Many correct answers to that one and someone will always be able to come up with an example of something that doesn't fit the common conception of a 'tree'. If you wanted to discuss the "use of trees in contemporary architecture" it would be like herding cats. You have to have a precise definition to continue.

Now we have a term that may have been coined by Jim Wagner which had come into common usage to describe a system that in some ways may reflect a more military style of training.

In that light, RDSD is an individual concept. What you think it is, is probably within a cooee of what I think it is, but may be miles away from what other people think it is, and really, does that matter?

Now what I was trying to illustrate in my example before was a different methodology in training. In a more structured system you learn what you are being taught and you would not normally change that. In a Japanese style TMA I would call that the 'Shu' part of Shuhari. It doesn't matter that it will take 5 years to perfect. In a reality based style you wouldn't keep teaching a move that obviously wasn't going to work for someone. They require something that is going to work for them with minimal training.

I would also argue whether pre-arranged drills are 'reality based' or even 'realistic'. To me, they are drills that are part of the methodology of training. Again, like the 'Shu'. For me, prearranged drills are pretty useless until you get to the 'Ri' stage of training, a stage many will never reach. Another reason I don't teach a specific response to a specific attack.



Chris Parker said:


> Yeah… again, not really a difference… nor really a definitive trait of RBSD methods… one of the points of kata is to give the tools to instinctively respond to what's happening around you, by giving you the particular skills and tactics to suit whatever you might come across.



I would agree to the first part, but to get to that level of usability normally takes much longer in a traditional setting.

The bit about kata I could debate all day, not because I disagree with what you are saying, but even a simple term like 'kata' requires definition because kata is different things to different people, another reason why people with no understanding of kata can make themselves look like complete idiots when they try to discuss the usefulness or otherwise of kata. But, again for me, learning from kata is a much longer term type of training than what I would expect to find in a system labelling itself 'reality based'.



Chris Parker said:


> The point is that while RBSD can contain "kicking butt", but that in no way makes it what they're about… that's a distinction that needs to be understood.


Exactly! Which is why I have no hesitation in re-quoting it.

Perhaps it could be said RBSD should give you the ability to 'kick butt', but so too do other traditional systems if taught properly.


----------



## K-man (Jan 5, 2015)

drop bear said:


> yeah but that does not define a rbsd. I would have a different idea of what would be considered" focused on de escalation"than what i tend to see in a rbsd system.
> 
> have we pinned one down yet? I think jim Wagner was mentioned as the popularizer of the concept.


As soon as someone 'defines' RBSD others will disagree. Some will say it should include this and others will say it should exclude that. All we are every going to achieve is an understanding of others' concept of RBSD.

If anyone wants to discuss something in the context of RBSD they will really need to be precise in describing what RB means to them. Even then you can rest assured someone else will cut them down by not accepting that definition.

But I would argue that the techniques of de-escalation cross all boundaries. There is no difference in de-escalation in a situation on the door or on the street, regardless of your training background.


----------



## K-man (Jan 5, 2015)

drop bear said:


> ok so i just looked through the Tim Wagner link. Seeing as he apparently coined the term.
> 
> and that still reads like non sport hybrid. Why would Tim Wagner's system be a rbsd and not a combatives?
> 
> even zdk with the kata might squeak into that definition


I might suggest there can be a significant overlap between RBSD and combatives. Combatives, to me, is something you are going to teach to the military and will certainly include lethal techniques which could well be employed in the execution of their duty. RBSD will normally include potentially lethal technique with the expectation that you will never have to use it.

ZDK, even with kata, is nowhere near that situation.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 5, 2015)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Combatives when geared towards extreme violence generally is perfect for military units though it certainly can be beneficial for LEO's and civilians in a moment of violence provided they can stay within the letter of the law.



Which is probably why my Sanda shifu described his Sanda (Police/Military version) as "not the greatest or the best martial art but a way to learn how to hurt someone very badly"


----------



## drop bear (Jan 5, 2015)

K-man said:


> As soon as someone 'defines' RBSD others will disagree. Some will say it should include this and others will say it should exclude that. All we are every going to achieve is an understanding of others' concept of RBSD.
> 
> If anyone wants to discuss something in the context of RBSD they will really need to be precise in describing what RB means to them. Even then you can rest assured someone else will cut them down by not accepting that definition.
> 
> But I would argue that the techniques of de-escalation cross all boundaries. There is no difference in de-escalation in a situation on the door or on the street, regardless of your training background.



when i look at de escalation it generally seems fairly primitive. There seems to be no structure to it.

say we compared it to sales. Which has similar tactics and aims. Their methods can be  incredibly comprehensive.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 5, 2015)

drop bear said:


> when i look at de escalation it generally seems fairly primitive. There seems to be no structure to it.



Wrong. There is a structure to it. Don't get unnecessary get punched in the face, don't get bottled etc. You get to choose your ground


----------



## K-man (Jan 5, 2015)

drop bear said:


> when i look at de escalation it generally seems fairly primitive. There seems to be no structure to it.
> 
> say we compared it to sales. Which has similar tactics and aims. Their methods can be  incredibly comprehensive.


You have told us that you have done a lot of door work. You have also told us of the many fights you have experienced. It's not drawing a long bow to suggest you may not have gad a lot of training in this area. 

Having trained people in sales, I would agree. There are a number of similarities but I have to disagree with primitive. Body language is important in sales as it is in de-escalation. The same could be said for personal space and distance, tone of voice, volume, body positioning, assertive behaviour, eye contact, confidence, perceived knowledge and your movements. Again, Geoff Thompson has produced volumes on the subject and from what I have seen, it's a big part of his training.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 5, 2015)

drop bear said:


> say we compared it to sales. Which has similar tactics and aims. Their methods can be incredibly comprehensive.



Jeez Louise, you are supposed to be a doorman, not a salesman! Sales, that is the flyer honey's


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 5, 2015)

My understanding of the RBSD term is probably pretty close to Chris's. What distinguishes it from other approaches is not the "butt kicking", but the heavy focus on the pre and post conflict stages.

Some of the best self-defense training I ever got was via some seminars a cop friend/training partner (Will Shepard, now deceased) of mine put on years ago, before the RBSD term was popularized. It was mostly scenario based, and we covered recognizing danger, avoiding danger, recognizing when to fight, recognizing when not to fight, and avoiding legal trouble afterwards in a variety of situations. 99% of the time was spent pre and post fight. The scenarios contained hidden pitfalls and forced you to think on the fly and were more emotionally demanding (for me anyway) than outright sparring would have been.

We didn't even get to cover verbal de-escalation or handling the emotional aftermath, but those would have been good additions to the material.

Unfortunately, the definition of RBSD is somewhat muddied even by those purporting to teach it. When Sammy Franco says "It's all about learning how to fight" or Chris St-Jacques claims that RBSD instructors need to come from an LEO or military background (even though the needs of LEOs and military personnel are different from those of civilian self defense), then they are undermining an important concept - that real self-defense is about a lot more than fighting and the non-fighting aspects can be trained as well.


----------



## K-man (Jan 5, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Jeez Louise, you are supposed to be a doorman, not a salesman! Sales, that is the flyer honey's


No, I disagree.  As a doorman you *are* selling your product. How you react is important to the business you are working in. Being able to control the door without resorting to violence is a huge part of it. Getting someone out of a place without them causing damage along the way also requires skill. The skills from one transfer to the other, at least in the direction of the door. DB's apparent people skills on the door may mean he would have a lean time in sales.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 5, 2015)

K-man said:


> No, I disagree.  As a doorman you *are* selling your product. How you react is important to the business you are working in. Being able to control the door without resorting to violence is a huge part of it. Getting someone out of a place without them causing damage along the way also requires skill. The skills from one transfer to the other, at least in the direction of the door. DB's apparent people skills on the door may mean he would have a lean time in sales.



Yes to be blunt, I know that K-man. And to be brutally forceful here, I don't think you quite get it, it takes one to know one


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 5, 2015)

No disrespect intended


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2015)

drop bear said:


> when i look at de escalation it generally seems fairly primitive. There seems to be no structure to it.
> 
> say we compared it to sales. Which has similar tactics and aims. Their methods can be  incredibly comprehensive.


I've seen a few very comprehensive de-escalation systems.  Verbal Judo, for example, is a pretty well known system.  While not specific to RBSD, it's pretty solid training on how to deescalate conflict.  I went through the training when I was working with daily with people who are disabled and often homeless.  As a group, they were very unpredictable, desperate and extremely volatile. 

I think this is an interesting example for a few reasons.  In particular, this is an example of verbal de-escalation training that has been decoupled from martial arts or combat training. Just reading through the thread so far, it seems to me that for a system to be RBSD, it must necessarily include both combat AND verbal de-escalation training.  j

I can see the similarity to sales, and while I don't agree that sales systems are more comprehensive, there are a lot of things that crossover between the two.  Verbal Judo and systems like it are also really great ways to become a better sales person.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2015)

K-man said:


> No, I disagree.  As a doorman you *are* selling your product. How you react is important to the business you are working in. Being able to control the door without resorting to violence is a huge part of it. Getting someone out of a place without them causing damage along the way also requires skill. The skills from one transfer to the other, at least in the direction of the door. DB's apparent people skills on the door may mean he would have a lean time in sales.


Yeah there is a certain bar where I work with overly aggressive security staff.  We get complaints of assaults by the staff every weekend.  I've noticed over the years the crowd there getting smaller and smaller as the word gets out.  This summer they finally fired them all and hired new staff that treat people better.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 5, 2015)

Steve said:


> I've seen a few very comprehensive de-escalation systems.  Verbal Judo, for example, is a pretty well known system.  While not specific to RBSD, it's pretty solid training on how to deescalate conflict.  I went through the training when I was working with daily with people who are disabled and often homeless.  As a group, they were very unpredictable, desperate and extremely volatile.
> 
> I think this is an interesting example for a few reasons.  In particular, this is an example of verbal de-escalation training that has been decoupled from martial arts or combat training. Just reading through the thread so far, it seems to me that for a system to be RBSD, it must necessarily include both combat AND verbal de-escalation training.  j
> 
> I can see the similarity to sales, and while I don't agree that sales systems are more comprehensive, there are a lot of things that crossover between the two.  Verbal Judo and systems like it are also really great ways to become a better sales person.



Verbal Judo, I have heard of that before


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 5, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Yeah there is a certain bar where I work with overly aggressive security staff.  We get complaints of assaults by the staff every weekend.  I've noticed over the years the crowd there getting smaller and smaller as the word gets out.  This summer they finally fired them all and hired new staff that treat people better.



Can they do the job?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Can they do the job?


Who the old staff or the new?  The old staff I'd say no since it cost the owners money by treating people poorly and they stopped coming.  The new staff well its not hard to walk people to the door and call the police to remove them


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 5, 2015)

Even from Jim Wagner's site I find these two quotes:

"_Training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that the practitioner is likely to encounter in their environment (their “reality”), in an accordance with the use-of-force continuum of that jurisdiction."
...
"We’ll teach you what few instructors are qualified to teach: defense against terrorist bombings and small arms attacks, criminal style stabbings, carjackings, drive-by shootings, kidnappings, sexual assault, armed robbery, criminal chemical attacks, gang violence, school and workplace massacres, child abductions, sniper attacks – just to name a few."
_
Honestly, the odds that a typical civilian in the U.S. is likely to personally encounter chemical attacks, sniper attacks, or a workplace massacre in their lifetime is not tremendously reality based. I think a good start to reality based training is to understand what dangers you are likely to actually encounter as opposed to which dangers have emotional salience due to dramatic news coverage.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 5, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Who the old staff or the new?  The old staff I'd say no since it cost the owners money by treating people poorly and they stopped coming.  The new staff well its not hard to walk people to the door and call the police to remove them



Maybe so, maybe not. Walking people to the door. In my world, that is a skill that is intrinsic. I get what you mean though


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 5, 2015)

@Chris Parker

Yes I did say that and I was cautioned already for that and why you had to repeat it here is beyond me is it just to show what a great guy you are or what? Anyway since all of our understanding seem to be wrong regarding RSBD then can you tell or say what is?


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 5, 2015)

If people just leave other people alone, do not steal, rob or hassle you then there should not be any problem. But if people steal, rob, hassle other people then  be prepared for the consequences and they will have it coming and may even deserve it. That is all I meant.


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 5, 2015)

As much as possible I stay away from trouble less problem for me and for anyone else who might get involved.


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 5, 2015)

And one more thing chris parker since you were brazen enough to mention that post for which I was cautioned for and it was actually deleted because it was against forum rules. What is your purpose in repeating it here? 

Anyway you don't know me and I don't know you. So let us just keep it within the context of this thread. Thank you. If the moderators will not caution me I will be more than happy to talk about it again. I actually have no problem with that.
But as one of the moderators told me it is not allowed so why mention it?Should not the moderators caution you too?

Anyway......


----------



## drop bear (Jan 5, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Wrong. There is a structure to it. Don't get unnecessary get punched in the face, don't get bottled etc. You get to choose your ground



not really what i mean about a structure. That is more of a mission statement.

a structure would be how you achieve that.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 5, 2015)

K-man said:


> You have told us that you have done a lot of door work. You have also told us of the many fights you have experienced. It's not drawing a long bow to suggest you may not have gad a lot of training in this area.
> 
> Having trained people in sales, I would agree. There are a number of similarities but I have to disagree with primitive. Body language is important in sales as it is in de-escalation. The same could be said for personal space and distance, tone of voice, volume, body positioning, assertive behaviour, eye contact, confidence, perceived knowledge and your movements. Again, Geoff Thompson has produced volumes on the subject and from what I have seen, it's a big part of his training.



have you done door work? Or are you making assumptions again.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 5, 2015)

tkdwarrior said:


> And one more thing chris parker since you were brazen enough to mention that post for which I was cautioned for and it was actually deleted because it was against forum rules. What is your purpose in repeating it here?
> 
> Anyway you don't know me and I don't know you. So let us just keep it within the context of this thread. Thank you. If the moderators will not caution me I will be more than happy to talk about it again. I actually have no problem with that.
> But as one of the moderators told me it is not allowed so why mention it?Should not the moderators caution you too?
> ...



you don't find out who the moderators caution and who they don't.

there is no "well he started it" defence.


----------



## K-man (Jan 6, 2015)

drop bear said:


> have you done door work? Or are you making assumptions again.


No, but I have trained some and trained with many. I've also detained quite a few shoplifters in my time and removed a number of trouble makers. Only three over thirty years turned to violence. 

What I have worked from so I know what to teach is Geoff Thompson's material.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 6, 2015)

K-man said:


> No, but I have trained some and trained with many. I've also detained quite a few shoplifters in my time and removed a number of trouble makers. Only three over thirty years turned to violence.
> 
> What I have worked from so I know what to teach is Geoff Thompson's material.



So where do you get this idea that i am especially violent or cant de escalate. 

Geoff Thompson got into fights and yet you use his material on de escalation.


----------



## K-man (Jan 6, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So where do you get this idea that i am especially violent or cant de escalate.
> 
> Geoff Thompson got into fights and yet you use his material on de escalation.


Only from your posts. Initially I accepted what you claimed but since then you have pushed some ideas that are, frankly, unbelievable. But for the record the following is your recent effort on de-escalation that shows you really don't get it.


drop bear said:


> when i look at de escalation it generally seems fairly primitive. There seems to be no structure to it.


As to your use of violence ... I'm not going to trawl through your early posts but it seemed like you thought you might impress us if you were taking part in hundreds of fights on the street. You made the claim.  I have mates who worked the pubs and clubs thirty or forty years ago who had numerous fights every night. These days, no. If you're having all those fights you're doing something wrong, or maybe you are gilding the lily.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 6, 2015)

MJS said:


> I'm a bit late to this, but I'll toss in my .02.
> 
> IMHO, I'd say RBSD is the bare bones of Martial Arts.  If we look at most arts, we'll see pretty much the same things: tradition, uniforms, kata, numerous stances, etc.  This of course, is perfectly fine.  As I've said a million times, everyone trains for their own reasons.
> 
> ...



Hey Mike,

Yeah… hate to say it, mate, but you're not describing RBSD there… the physical component may include something like boxing, or MMA like methods, or weapons… or it might not… it might have almost nothing particularly "physical" in it's methods at all… instead relying on previous training in more "traditional" systems… or in boxing, or MMA, or anything, really. Again, "realistic" in terms of physical violence handling methods, is not the same as "Reality Based Self Defence"…



drop bear said:


> yeah but that does not define a rbsd. I would have a different idea of what would be considered" focused on de escalation"than what i tend to see in a rbsd system.



Er… okay… for the record, de-escalation can be (and is) a focus of RBSD systems, but is not "the" focus. That said… I have no idea what on earth you mean by this…



drop bear said:


> have we pinned one down yet? I think jim Wagner was mentioned as the popularizer of the concept.



Sixth time, then?

Jim Wagner was the guy who popularised the TERM… not the CONCEPT. There were others who were already doing that before him.

Okay?



drop bear said:


> ok so i just looked through the Tim Wagner link. Seeing as he apparently coined the term.
> 
> and that still reads like non sport hybrid. Why would Tim Wagner's system be a rbsd and not a combatives?
> 
> even zdk with the kata might squeak into that definition



"Jim", not "Tim"…

For the record, I have no idea what you mean, or refer to, when you say "non-sport hybrid"… that doesn't mean anything to me… but, if you mean a modern non-sporting system, okay… but the reason his system is an RBSD one, not a combatives one is that, well, it is an RBSD one. It contains combatives (and similar) methods… but also deals with a lot more, and is about risk awareness and minimalisation (the real core of RBSD) than just engaging an aggressor.

Zen Do Kai is really not part of the equation or discussion… nor is it related to either idea.



drop bear said:


> when i say kicking butt i mean engaging in physical response. How to punch how to kick that sort of thing. Like pretty much all martial arts.



I got that… but the reality is that not all RBSD's even match that description… many don't teach specific methods of punching or anything close to it… again, Deane Lawler's system really only has a particular cover that he teaches.. Senshido has many drills and teaching methods, but really dominantly focuses on one physical response (the "Shredder")… Geoff Thompson's approach deals with some basic methods taken from boxing and basic wrestling, but again focuses on drills over physical responses.

In other words, how to punch/kick is not really a major part of many RBSD systems… when and why is.



drop bear said:


> do you mean they have a focus on tactical over technical?



In a way, yeah. Mind you, I'd say that my martial arts are also tactical over technical… the biggest difference is what the tactical is designed for… and the context of the application of the technical.



K-man said:


> I did read it somewhere. It's about 4th or 5th generation and tailored for what you may encounter here. Unlike some styles, it makes no pretence of what it is.



Okay, so are you saying there was a specific "Krav Maga" (or, at least, one line/form of Krav Maga) verbal de-escalation method?



K-man said:


> Exactly. I teach the same to both groups. In my early days it was never mentioned, but back then we had what we used to call common sense and we didn't have lawyers standing on every street corner waiting to help the 'victim'.



The problem, of course, is that a reasonable amount of de-escalation isn't really going to come under the purview of "common sense". And, to that end, you really are best served by having a specific, structured, educated, informed, and realistic approach to the concept… covering obviously the situations/culture you're dealing with (as you mention), as well as having various forms of options, and understanding social rules, while dealing with the various forms of "attacks" that can be encountered.



K-man said:


> May well be, but then I'm not the one trying to precisely define the term, mainly because I think it is an arbitrary definition. When we were trying to discuss TMAs vs whatever, it just didn't work because TMA as a concept is a very broad term. The OP, for reasons known only to himself, refused to define his concept of TMA so discussion became pointless. This is really the same. To really discuss RBSD you have to define it, which is really what Brian is asking us to do. Sort of like asking, "What is a Tree?" Many correct answers to that one and someone will always be able to come up with an example of something that doesn't fit the common conception of a 'tree'. If you wanted to discuss the "use of trees in contemporary architecture" it would be like herding cats. You have to have a precise definition to continue.



Well, yes and no… sure, it's a broad categorisation, but it's also a particular one… same as TMA, or combatives, or even "sports systems". I mean, a frog isn't a tree, even if it's called a "tree frog"…



K-man said:


> Now we have a term that may have been coined by Jim Wagner which had come into common usage to describe a system that in some ways may reflect a more military style of training.



Well, to give him his due, it was coined by Jim… but no, it doesn't refer to a "more military style of training"… that would be combatives… and that term goes back to Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate…



K-man said:


> In that light, RDSD is an individual concept. What you think it is, is probably within a cooee of what I think it is, but may be miles away from what other people think it is, and really, does that matter?



Does it matter? Well, yeah, it does. Otherwise there's no point trying to discuss anything when people can just say "oh, that's not what I mean by the term". When it all comes down to it, RBSD is a specific term for a particular approach… people misusing the term doesn't change what it actually refers to, nor does any individual preference for usage. It means what it means, not anything else. What it means can encompass a wide variety of approaches, but in the end, if it isn't RBSD, it isn't RBSD… individual perceptions don't really enter into that.



K-man said:


> Now what I was trying to illustrate in my example before was a different methodology in training. In a more structured system you learn what you are being taught and you would not normally change that. In a Japanese style TMA I would call that the 'Shu' part of Shuhari. It doesn't matter that it will take 5 years to perfect. In a reality based style you wouldn't keep teaching a move that obviously wasn't going to work for someone. They require something that is going to work for them with minimal training.



I got that… my point was more that what you were describing was not exactly uncommon in traditional systems as well… the "minimal training" thing is something separate, I feel, which will come down to the context and intended application, as well as the system itself.



K-man said:


> I would also argue whether pre-arranged drills are 'reality based' or even 'realistic'. To me, they are drills that are part of the methodology of training. Again, like the 'Shu'. For me, prearranged drills are pretty useless until you get to the 'Ri' stage of training, a stage many will never reach. Another reason I don't teach a specific response to a specific attack.



Hmm, I think we're operating on a different understanding of Shu-ha-ri here, my friend… but, to the first there, pre-arranged drills can be "reality based", or "realistic", or not… the fact that they're pre-arranged actually doesn't factor into that. And as far as not teaching specific responses, are you sure you're not? I mean, they might not be something that pre-existed before you showed them in that class, but if you're giving something as a response to an attack that the students are following, that's a specific response… it's not the only one, or the only possibility, of course… but it's still a specific response (in that moment). Or do you show ideas, and get the students to find whatever they might be able to get out of that? That's an approach I've seen (I'm honestly not fond of it, but some like it), so I'm just getting some clarification here…



K-man said:


> I would agree to the first part, but to get to that level of usability normally takes much longer in a traditional setting.



Different forms and approaches to kata, my friend…



K-man said:


> The bit about kata I could debate all day, not because I disagree with what you are saying, but even a simple term like 'kata' requires definition because kata is different things to different people, another reason why people with no understanding of kata can make themselves look like complete idiots when they try to discuss the usefulness or otherwise of kata. But, again for me, learning from kata is a much longer term type of training than what I would expect to find in a system labelling itself 'reality based'.



Sure, no argument here. That, again, comes down to context and intended application, of course.



K-man said:


> Exactly! Which is why I have no hesitation in re-quoting it.
> 
> Perhaps it could be said RBSD should give you the ability to 'kick butt', but so too do other traditional systems if taught properly.



In cases, far more (and better) than RBSD systems…



K-man said:


> As soon as someone 'defines' RBSD others will disagree. Some will say it should include this and others will say it should exclude that. All we are every going to achieve is an understanding of others' concept of RBSD.
> 
> If anyone wants to discuss something in the context of RBSD they will really need to be precise in describing what RB means to them. Even then you can rest assured someone else will cut them down by not accepting that definition.



Well… isn't that kinda the point of the thread? To present a definition that is accurate, and inclusive of what RBSD actually encapsulates?

The point is that RBSD, like anything, isn't just "what people want to call RBSD"… it's a specific thing. Are all RBSD systems then the same, exactly? Of course not… but they all contain the hallmarks that would be expected to be encountered, with broadly similar emphasis' and focus'. It's like a term such as Kenjutsu… that refers to combative uses of a sword (Japanese)… does it include short sword? It can. Does it include sword drawing? Sure, but not necessarily… and even then, it might be differentiated between it and the rest of the syllabus… Does it include other weapons? Again, it can. Are all Kenjutsu systems the same, with the same techniques, mechanics, specific syllabus, tactical approaches, strategic overviews, weapon lists etc? Nope. Does it include arts that don't use a sword at all? Well.. no.

Same with RBSD. It either is (and has the hallmarks of such), or it's not. If someone wants to argue about specific aspects (what to include or exclude), they need to make the argument based on the understanding of the term in the first place.



K-man said:


> But I would argue that the techniques of de-escalation cross all boundaries. There is no difference in de-escalation in a situation on the door or on the street, regardless of your training background.



Actually, I'd say there can be quite a difference between them. As detailed earlier, different cultural considerations can change the specifics of de-escalation, so they don't even cross all boundaries when we simply keep it to "street".



K-man said:


> I might suggest there can be a significant overlap between RBSD and combatives. Combatives, to me, is something you are going to teach to the military and will certainly include lethal techniques which could well be employed in the execution of their duty. RBSD will normally include potentially lethal technique with the expectation that you will never have to use it.
> 
> ZDK, even with kata, is nowhere near that situation.



Hmm… sure, there can be some overlap… depending on the system. I'm not familiar with any RBSD system that really deals much with lethal methodologies, though… for the record…

I think it might be time to get some clear definitions out there:

TMA (Traditional Martial Art): A systematised and codified approach to a particular culturally based expression of violent encounters, focused on expressing lessons through combative techniques and other methods. Not necessarily designed to deal with modern (or even "realistic") violence.

Combatives: A militarily based close-quarters method focusing on direct, gross-motor, reliable methods against common, gross-motor attacks, including the use of small weapons, and against military style weapons. Sometimes called CQC (Close Quarters Combatives). Commonly aggressive.

DefTacs (Defensive Tactics): A common training method employed by Law Enforcement and similar, this is a simplified gross-motor approach to give application of a tactic, or group of tactics, in a versatile, easily adapted manner. Commonly taught in a "dove-tailed" approach, and dealing with modern forms of violence. Might be aggressive, defensive, passive, controlling, or anything else that the tactic and application demands.

RBSD (Reality Based Self Defence): A training methodology focused on modern understanding of the broader concept of "self defence", with an emphasis on the pre- and post-fight realities. While it may contain physical combat/engagement methods, these are commonly minimalist. Primary concepts include HAOV (Habitual Acts of Violence), recognition of pre-fight indicators, effects of adrenaline, de-escalation (passive and aggressive), being a "hard target", body language, legal realities (before, during, and after), common assault patterns, social (ritual) violence, psychological aspects (after-effects, PTSD, "limiting beliefs", social programming and conditioning, and more), and so on.

As you can see, TMA, Combatives, Def Tacs (and modern martial arts, sports martial arts, and so on) are largely concerned with "the fight", or the engagement. That's their focus. RBSD is differentiated by not focusing on that, although it is dealt with. That's the biggest difference.



drop bear said:


> when i look at de escalation it generally seems fairly primitive. There seems to be no structure to it.
> 
> say we compared it to sales. Which has similar tactics and aims. Their methods can be  incredibly comprehensive.



Well, there's a hell of a lot of structure when I teach it… in fact, I have an entire syllabus for de-escalation, covering passive, active, verbal, physical, social and asocial contexts and assaults, different forms of "approach" (aggressive, "friendly", "sleazy", and so on), particular methods of recognising what approach is needed, how to switch when the aggressor changes tactics, when to switch, how to maintain physical distance, how to use physical distance, how to trigger a "flight" response, use of body language, reading of body language, recognition of escalation, when to escalate yourself, and so on.

Oh, and for the record, I've been in sales for a long time now… retail since 2007, family business for 11 years before that… and while there can be similarities, the differences are enormous. I'd never suggest that a salesman is also a good de-escalator in these situations… it's really quite a different set of skills, although both are based around effective communication (you might say).



Tony Dismukes said:


> Even from Jim Wagner's site I find these two quotes:
> 
> "_Training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that the practitioner is likely to encounter in their environment (their “reality”), in an accordance with the use-of-force continuum of that jurisdiction."
> ...
> ...



Ha, as I said, Jim's real talent is for marketing… he knows how to tap into a market, in this case, by playing on fears…[/QUOTE]


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 6, 2015)

And, just to separate these ones out… 



tkdwarrior said:


> @Chris Parker
> 
> Yes I did say that and I was cautioned already for that and why you had to repeat it here is beyond me is it just to show what a great guy you are or what?



Why did I bring it up? Well, for one thing, I'm not privy to anything you may or may not have been cautioned about… only the Mod team and yourself would know that… but really, it was to get some kind of clarification from you… as noted, your posts are largely contradictory… saying that you'd rather avoid a situation, while at the same time saying "Well, they had it coming"… honestly, it comes across as if you're trying to present one image, but betraying another reality at the same time.



tkdwarrior said:


> Anyway since all of our understanding seem to be wrong regarding RSBD then can you tell or say what is?



Kinda thought I had a few times already… hmm… you might want to go back to my first post in the thread… 



tkdwarrior said:


> If people just leave other people alone, do not steal, rob or hassle you then there should not be any problem. But if people steal, rob, hassle other people then  be prepared for the consequences and they will have it coming and may even deserve it. That is all I meant.



Right… see, this is where the contradiction comes in… there's a certain vengeful, almost gleeful tone coming through there. I am hoping that that's not correct, of course.

Of course, the question is: who are you to say who "deserves" anything? Are you in law enforcement? The legal system? Or is this some sense of moral outrage at a perceived invasion of your sovereign person?



tkdwarrior said:


> As much as possible I stay away from trouble less problem for me and for anyone else who might get involved.



Yeah… that's reading the same way… 



tkdwarrior said:


> And one more thing chris parker since you were brazen enough to mention that post for which I was cautioned for and it was actually deleted because it was against forum rules. What is your purpose in repeating it here?



Didn't you already ask that? I wasn't aware it was deleted, I didn't go looking for it… and I repeated it as you're saying you'd rather avoid a situation, yet in another post were happily engaging in one where the guy you were kicking wasn't posing a threat… which seemed rather contradictory.



tkdwarrior said:


> Anyway you don't know me and I don't know you. So let us just keep it within the context of this thread. Thank you. If the moderators will not caution me I will be more than happy to talk about it again. I actually have no problem with that.
> But as one of the moderators told me it is not allowed so why mention it?Should not the moderators caution you too?
> 
> Anyway......



Again, I wasn't aware it had been deleted. I can certainly see why they did, though. But no, the action wasn't what I was interested in… it was the contradictory messages in your post… which is what I actually asked about.


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 6, 2015)

http://www.sammyfranco.com/reality-based-self-defense.html 

I guess here is a good description of what RBSD is. Self explanatory.


----------



## MJS (Jan 6, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> Yeah… hate to say it, mate, but you're not describing RBSD there… the physical component may include something like boxing, or MMA like methods, or weapons… or it might not… it might have almost nothing particularly "physical" in it's methods at all… instead relying on previous training in more "traditional" systems… or in boxing, or MMA, or anything, really. Again, "realistic" in terms of physical violence handling methods, is not the same as "Reality Based Self Defence"…



Hi Chris,

Perhaps my wording wasn't the best.  Let me try to clarify.  My point in bringing up those things, ie: boxing, MMA, was simply because those are 2 arts that are trained very different from the typical TMA.  I think this link is pretty good at explaining things that are most likely going to be seen in the RBSD setting, and not so much in a TMA setting.  Yes, it's a description of various workshops offered, but it's the content that I'm referring to.  I think you'd be hard pressed to walk into a TKD school, a Kyokushin school, and hear talk of verbal de-escalation, going over various de-escalation drills, scenario drills, etc.  I trained Kenpo for over 20yrs, and it was rare that we'd train punches and kicks with tons of movement, other than during sparring.  Think focus mitt training here.  

I never said that RBSD training wouldn't stem from traditional training.  I said that IMO, RBSD was the bare bones of TMA.  I could take my time in Kenpo, strip the material down drastically, add in the missing pieces, ie: scenario drills, de-escalation drills, all the stuff that we saw in some of those RBSD videos posted on this thread, and turn Kenpo into RBSD.  

As for the training itself...like I said, very different from what you'll find in a TMA dojo.  All you have to do, is head over to YouTube, pull up a TKD or Kenpo clip, and compare that training, again, to any of the RBSD clips that were posted here, and you should see a big difference.  You'll see a set of moves that can be trained in a variety of situations, compared to the typical Kenpo school, where you'll have 5+ techs for the same attack, with ever so slight differences.


----------



## K-man (Jan 6, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Okay, so are you saying there was a specific "Krav Maga" (or, at least, one line/form of Krav Maga) verbal de-escalation method?



I have not seen any formal training of de-escalation in Krav. It is something that is 'mentioned in passing' in the material I have. What I teach is information I have accumulated over the years. What I was saying in the post was that IMHO there are a number of styles of Krav out there, many that claim to be the 'real' one, where in reality Krav has become a generic term.  Actually, if you have formalised and structured training in that area I'd be interested in seeing it. Maybe it's time we met up for another coffee. 



Chris Parker said:


> The problem, of course, is that a reasonable amount of de-escalation isn't really going to come under the purview of "common sense". And, to that end, you really are best served by having a specific, structured, educated, informed, and realistic approach to the concept… covering obviously the situations/culture you're dealing with (as you mention), as well as having various forms of options, and understanding social rules, while dealing with the various forms of "attacks" that can be encountered.


I suppose it depends on how much information people need. From my perspective most of the people I teach are not going out getting into fights. What I'm trying to get across to them is why it's not a good idea and what you can do to reduce the risk of it happening, occupational hazards excepted. To that end having a retired senior police officer as one of my senior guys is a great resource both for the pre and post conflict instruction.



Chris Parker said:


> Does it matter? Well, yeah, it does. Otherwise there's no point trying to discuss anything when people can just say "oh, that's not what I mean by the term". When it all comes down to it, RBSD is a specific term for a particular approach… people misusing the term doesn't change what it actually refers to, nor does any individual preference for usage. It means what it means, not anything else. What it means can encompass a wide variety of approaches, but in the end, if it isn't RBSD, it isn't RBSD… individual perceptions don't really enter into that.


This is what I'm getting at. We can define a term however you like but because people have different understanding of the term I doubt you'll ever have consensus. Even when you have a single world like 'paralyse' you get people misinterpreting the meaning. How much more complicated does it become when you string four word together? That's why I asked "does it matter". Let's accept that the term was coined by Jim Wagner. Along comes someone like Sammy Franco and puts up his definition of the term which is similar but still different. Geoff Thompson and others have done a similar thing. Laszlo Biro invented the first ballpoint pen and it was marketed under the Biro brand. Now, Biro is a generic term for a ballpoint pen of any brand. IMHO we can define RBSD however we like and there will still be fervent discussion.



Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, I think we're operating on a different understanding of Shu-ha-ri here, my friend… but, to the first there, pre-arranged drills can be "reality based", or "realistic", or not… the fact that they're pre-arranged actually doesn't factor into that. And as far as not teaching specific responses, are you sure you're not? I mean, they might not be something that pre-existed before you showed them in that class, but if you're giving something as a response to an attack that the students are following, that's a specific response… it's not the only one, or the only possibility, of course… but it's still a specific response (in that moment). Or do you show ideas, and get the students to find whatever they might be able to get out of that? That's an approach I've seen (I'm honestly not fond of it, but some like it), so I'm just getting some clarification here…


OK. As you often write, this could take some time. 

As an example that can be demonstrated in class, and one that I have used in other posts. Make sure the guys are wearing head guards.

Start with a drill where the attacker comes in throwing a left right combination to the head and you provide a set response to that attack, other than a block. The reason I say that is, in real life a block stops an attack and precipitates the next. The next attack is totally random so you are immediately disadvantaged and chances are you will now instinctively block and may even be overcome. To me learning to block, then strike, is a flawed concept that is taught across the board. Not that it can't work but IMHO is very likely to end up with your **** on a plate if the attacker has any reasonable offensive skills.

So back to the drill. Drill it both sides. After a short time the defender should be reasonably proficient at managing that attack from either side. Now ask the attacker to come in using either left or right combination randomly. I'll guarantee that in most instances the defender will be punched in the face.

Now vary the drill slightly. Without the defender being aware instruct the attacker to drop the height of the second strike. Again the brain can't cope with that change and in most cases the second strike will go straight through.

Of course the reason this happens is because what we have is a reactive response and, unless you slow it right down, the strike will always be faster than a premeditated response.

Now, I am not for one moment saying not to do those drills. Train them and train them. I was interested to read another ill informed comment from the one with no formal training saying how joint locks were useless because they don't work in a real fight. Classic comment.  The answer to both is the same. If you are trying to apply a particular lock or if you are trying to use a certain defensive combination in a real or even realistic environment, it will most likely fail unless you are big enough or strong enough to overpower your opponent.

What I am saying is, in a real situation, unless you are working with predictive response, a fight is total chaos. The way I explain it is, you must train to be able to handle attacks of any type from any direction at any time. That may involve you covering or instinctively blocking the attack until you recognise the position you are in and react instinctively to that situation. You work with what you are given. It is often stated as, "learn the technique, drill the technique, forget the technique." Only then can you use the technique.

Not sure if that is what you are referring to but it is in essence the way I look at it.



Chris Parker said:


> Different forms and approaches to kata, my friend…


Exactly. Kata is another generic term with different meaning in different styles. What it is is a method of transferring information. If we used the analogy of a book it could be anything from a detailed technical instruction manual to a book with an introductory description at the top and the rest of the page left for your personal notes. It could be a book where one page follows the previous page or it could be a 'pick a path' variety where the order of the pages is determined by the reader. Others may look at kata as an encyclopaedia of terms.

What it isn't is a type of training that is the same across all styles and that is why we have such opinionated debate when kata is termed useless by people who have no detailed understanding of what kata is and how it varies in its application.



Chris Parker said:


> Well… isn't that kinda the point of the thread? To present a definition that is accurate, and inclusive of what RBSD actually encapsulates?


It is the point of the thread, but I fear we will not reach consensus. All I'm saying is we can define the term however we like. We could even take the definition that you provided above. It changes nothing. People will still debate what is and what isn't RBSD.




Chris Parker said:


> The point is that RBSD, like anything, isn't just "what people want to call RBSD"… it's a specific thing. Are all RBSD systems then the same, exactly? Of course not… but they all contain the hallmarks that would be expected to be encountered, with broadly similar emphasis' and focus'.


'Broad' being the operative word. As a result, I still believe when people wish to discuss RBSD, they will still have to define the context. It becomes rather pointless when someone says "A,B,C" in a RBSD discussion and someone else says "that isn't RBSD". It doesn't matter if it is not RBSD according to the strict definition. What matters is the discussion provided in the context provided by the OP.



Chris Parker said:


> Same with RBSD. It either is (and has the hallmarks of such), or it's not. If someone wants to argue about specific aspects (what to include or exclude), they need to make the argument based on the understanding of the term in the first place.


Exactly, and that is why it becomes virtually impossible to provide a catch all definition.



Chris Parker said:


> Hmm… sure, there can be some overlap… depending on the system. I'm not familiar with any RBSD system that really deals much with lethal methodologies, though… for the record…


Surely lethal depends on how far you take a particular technique. Whether you would ever consider using that technique in a real situation is another discussion. Krav for example does teach weapon disarms, then to use that weapon if required. Same with Systema. So within your definition those systems become combatives. I prefer to just call it overlap. If you are travelling overseas in some of the more lawless areas I can imagine those skills could be beneficial. There are other situations where I would see lethal use of force could be justified, not necessarily optimal.



Chris Parker said:


> I think it might be time to get some clear definitions out there:
> 
> TMA (Traditional Martial Art): A systematised and codified approach to a particular culturally based expression of violent encounters, focused on expressing lessons through combative techniques and other methods. Not necessarily designed to deal with modern (or even "realistic") violence.
> 
> ...


Still sufficiently loose to provide decades of debate on MT. 



Chris Parker said:


> As you can see, TMA, Combatives, Def Tacs (and modern martial arts, sports martial arts, and so on) are largely concerned with "the fight", or the engagement. That's their focus. RBSD is differentiated by not focusing on that, although it is dealt with. That's the biggest difference.


But RBSD still includes "the fight" and if you get to that stage I would say it is still the most important part. When all else fails .... !


----------



## drop bear (Jan 6, 2015)

K-man said:


> Only from your posts. Initially I accepted what you claimed but since then you have pushed some ideas that are, frankly, unbelievable. But for the record the following is your recent effort on de-escalation that shows you really don't get it.
> As to your use of violence ... I'm not going to trawl through your early posts but it seemed like you thought you might impress us if you were taking part in hundreds of fights on the street. You made the claim.  I have mates who worked the pubs and clubs thirty or forty years ago who had numerous fights every night. These days, no. If you're having all those fights you're doing something wrong, or maybe you are gilding the lily.



de escalation as compared to the effort put into sales training is primitive.

you would not accept logic or evidence. You only accept an appeal to authority. And i have the self defence experience you don't.

all true. I have been doing this for a while now and you are again commenting on something you don't understand.


----------



## K-man (Jan 6, 2015)

drop bear said:


> And i have the self defence experience you don't.
> 
> all true. I have been doing this for a while now and you are again commenting on something you don't understand.


Really?

Are we having a pissing competition now? I started with boxing in the 50s, a little judo in the 60s, dabbled with karate in the 70s, took it up seriously in the 80s. Took to Systema and Krav after 2000 plus studied Okinawan karate including Kyusho almost full time as well as starting my own school. I have been learning Aikido continuously for the past 8 years. Along with that I dabbled with a little Escrima, Chin Na, Dim-Mak and grappling.

So let's put up or shut up! Exactly what is it I don't understand?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 6, 2015)

Folks, let's keep the conversation on topic, adult, professional, and polite please.
It's fine to attack the message. It's not fine to attack the messenger.
If you just can't get along with someone, use the ignore button.
I think it's safe to say that everyone on the mod team would rather be talking about martial arts (that _*is*_ why we all joined this forum) than acting as a playground monitor.
Please. Have pity on the staff. Play nice.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 7, 2015)

K-man said:


> Really?
> 
> Are we having a pissing competition now? I started with boxing in the 50s, a little judo in the 60s, dabbled with karate in the 70s, took it up seriously in the 80s. Took to Systema and Krav after 2000 plus studied Okinawan karate including Kyusho almost full time as well as starting my own school. I have been learning Aikido continuously for the past 8 years. Along with that I dabbled with a little Escrima, Chin Na, Dim-Mak and grappling.
> 
> So let's put up or shut up! Exactly what is it I don't understand?



why there is violence in the security industry. And whether or not a person can de escalate based on their posts.

there is an image of the industry that does not reflect the reality of the job.


----------



## K-man (Jan 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> why there is violence in the security industry. And whether or not a person can de escalate based on their posts.
> 
> there is an image of the industry that does not reflect the reality of the job.


OK. So you obviously aren't going to detail your training background and I assume you barely comprehensible reply is suggesting I don't understand why there is violence in the security industry.  Really? 

And then I don't understand that someone can de-escalate based on their posts.  Well based on their posts I would suggest that there are many guys on MT who are well qualified in that area and based on their posts I believe them.

So why would I question your ability to de-escalate? Well first you are very aggressive. You have had hundreds of street fights, you told us that in earlier posts. You have told us that de-escalation techniques are much less than sales training showing you don't have any training in that area.
Your communication skills are deplorable. Most people here can't understand what you are saying. You have stated that you enjoy baiting people like *ballen *and you seem to enjoy confrontation. Not one of those things points at someone with the people skills to de-escalate anything.

Then you finish off by stating that the image of the industry doesn't reflect the reality of the job. Well first let me tell you what I think is the image of the industry. I know a large number of guys who work in security. The industry has gone to enormous lengths to clean up its image. These days there is far more emphasis on identifying potential  problems before they get out of hand, there is much more emphasis on de-escalation and there is more training in the techniques of removing non-compliant, troublesome, patrons without causing injury. There is also the recognition that security staff are just that, staff, and as such they represent the business, so how they behave is important to that business. How's that for starters?

Now let's look at what you have told us. You've had very little training in de-escalation and you have had hundreds of fights ... and I'm the one who doesn't understand. Hmm.

But this takes us back to the OP. What is RBSD? Working in security is a job, nothing to do with self defence, reality based or otherwise. Why have you introduced this into the thread?


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 7, 2015)

tkdwarrior said:


> http://www.sammyfranco.com/reality-based-self-defense.html
> 
> I guess here is a good description of what RBSD is. Self explanatory.



Overall, yeah, Sammy's description is pretty much it… he confuses the issue by stating that "It's all about learning how to fight", as that's not correct, and directly contradicts pretty much everything else he writes in his description (that there is emphasis on pre and post fight aspects, de-escalation, use of force, legal realities, psychological aspects, moral and emotional realities, and so on). I'm curious as to what you see that you refer to as "self explanatory" there.



MJS said:


> Hi Chris,



Hey Mike,



MJS said:


> Perhaps my wording wasn't the best.  Let me try to clarify.  My point in bringing up those things, ie: boxing, MMA, was simply because those are 2 arts that are trained very different from the typical TMA.



But, frankly, far closer to TMA training than RBSD training… that was my point. Unlike one is not like to another...



MJS said:


> I think this link is pretty good at explaining things that are most likely going to be seen in the RBSD setting, and not so much in a TMA setting.  Yes, it's a description of various workshops offered, but it's the content that I'm referring to.  I think you'd be hard pressed to walk into a TKD school, a Kyokushin school, and hear talk of verbal de-escalation, going over various de-escalation drills, scenario drills, etc.



Ha, well, yeah… Senshido is very much an RBSD system… Richard Dmitri has been at the forefront of the RBSD "movement" for a while now, and I've mentioned him, his group, and his successor a number of times in this thread alone as a reference point to what RBSD is… 

And, of course, I completely agree… this is a big part of the distinction I've been trying to get across… but none of that makes any of it like a "boxing oriented or MMA-ish".



MJS said:


> I trained Kenpo for over 20yrs, and it was rare that we'd train punches and kicks with tons of movement, other than during sparring.  Think focus mitt training here.



Sorry, not following here… are you comparing drilling methods between systems? Drills with movement don't necessarily make something RBSD… although it's more likely that they'll take that form there… as we have a range of such in the martial arts side of things… 



MJS said:


> I never said that RBSD training wouldn't stem from traditional training.  I said that IMO, RBSD was the bare bones of TMA.  I could take my time in Kenpo, strip the material down drastically, add in the missing pieces, ie: scenario drills, de-escalation drills, all the stuff that we saw in some of those RBSD videos posted on this thread, and turn Kenpo into RBSD.



Sure… but, to be frank, the Kenpo factor is the least important there… you could do that with any physical combative system… and turning Kenpo into an RBSD approach takes it away from being Kenpo… in the end, it just becomes a Kenpo based, or influenced, RBSD system.



MJS said:


> As for the training itself...like I said, very different from what you'll find in a TMA dojo.  All you have to do, is head over to YouTube, pull up a TKD or Kenpo clip, and compare that training, again, to any of the RBSD clips that were posted here, and you should see a big difference.  You'll see a set of moves that can be trained in a variety of situations, compared to the typical Kenpo school, where you'll have 5+ techs for the same attack, with ever so slight differences.



I'm in agreement with everything up until the last sentence there, my friend… odds are that you aren't really going to see "a set of moves" at all in an RBSD approach… depending on the group, and what exactly you're watching, of course…


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 7, 2015)

K-man said:


> I have not seen any formal training of de-escalation in Krav. It is something that is 'mentioned in passing' in the material I have. What I teach is information I have accumulated over the years. What I was saying in the post was that IMHO there are a number of styles of Krav out there, many that claim to be the 'real' one, where in reality Krav has become a generic term.  Actually, if you have formalised and structured training in that area I'd be interested in seeing it. Maybe it's time we met up for another coffee.



Okay, cool, that's what I was expecting to hear. With regards to our structured approach, sure… I'm not about to get into it publicly here (it's still our intellectual property, after all…), but I'm happy to give you some ideas of what we do in person. Other than that, I can invite you along should we cover it at a workshop or similar again in the near future… you really should have been at one September a year back… that was quite a good day!



K-man said:


> I suppose it depends on how much information people need. From my perspective most of the people I teach are not going out getting into fights. What I'm trying to get across to them is why it's not a good idea and what you can do to reduce the risk of it happening, occupational hazards excepted. To that end having a retired senior police officer as one of my senior guys is a great resource both for the pre and post conflict instruction.



Sure… but risk management and avoidance strategies (which is more what you're referring to there) isn't the same as de-escalation… that's something that's applied when you're in the early stages of an actual situation, and are past the avoidance opportunities… which is the context and stage you find yourself in when de-escalation is required.



K-man said:


> This is what I'm getting at. We can define a term however you like but because people have different understanding of the term I doubt you'll ever have consensus. Even when you have a single world like 'paralyse' you get people misinterpreting the meaning. How much more complicated does it become when you string four word together? That's why I asked "does it matter". Let's accept that the term was coined by Jim Wagner. Along comes someone like Sammy Franco and puts up his definition of the term which is similar but still different. Geoff Thompson and others have done a similar thing. Laszlo Biro invented the first ballpoint pen and it was marketed under the Biro brand. Now, Biro is a generic term for a ballpoint pen of any brand. IMHO we can define RBSD however we like and there will still be fervent discussion.



A consensus isn't needed, honestly. What is needed is an understanding of the context of the applied term… to take the "paralyse" situation from the other thread, Dirty Dog was applying the term in a medical, clinical context, whereas drop bear was talking more about causing the opponent to stop what they're doing (stop attacking), both mentally and physically… in essence, "paralysing" their forward movement, even if only momentarily.

Again, it comes down to RBSD being a particular method/approach to the concept of self defence, which can be expressed in a number of ways… but the core definition/meaning of RBSD doesn't change. Again, think of my Kenjutsu analogy… there are literally dozens, if not hundreds of Kenjutsu systems, which will share some commonality (they all teach the combative use of a sword, for instance), but even in that, the variations are boundless. That doesn't mean that Kenjutsu defies classification, as it's too broad… just that a broad definition can still be applied without contravening the variety that exists.



K-man said:


> OK. As you often write, this could take some time.



Ha! Cool.



K-man said:


> As an example that can be demonstrated in class, and one that I have used in other posts. Make sure the guys are wearing head guards.
> 
> Start with a drill where the attacker comes in throwing a left right combination to the head and you provide a set response to that attack, other than a block. The reason I say that is, in real life a block stops an attack and precipitates the next. The next attack is totally random so you are immediately disadvantaged and chances are you will now instinctively block and may even be overcome. To me learning to block, then strike, is a flawed concept that is taught across the board. Not that it can't work but IMHO is very likely to end up with your **** on a plate if the attacker has any reasonable offensive skills.



So, leaving off the "block/no block" idea (that's something that we might cover at a later point…), you're saying that you start with a "set response", yeah? Cool, that's (again) what I was expecting.



K-man said:


> So back to the drill. Drill it both sides. After a short time the defender should be reasonably proficient at managing that attack from either side. Now ask the attacker to come in using either left or right combination randomly. I'll guarantee that in most instances the defender will be punched in the face.
> 
> Now vary the drill slightly. Without the defender being aware instruct the attacker to drop the height of the second strike. Again the brain can't cope with that change and in most cases the second strike will go straight through.
> 
> Of course the reason this happens is because what we have is a reactive response and, unless you slow it right down, the strike will always be faster than a premeditated response.



Okay… to me, there are issues with that drill, unless you're intending it to show the perceived flaw you're mentioning at the end there, yeah? I guess my question is, in which part of my quote is this a response to? I'm a little lost here… 



K-man said:


> Now, I am not for one moment saying not to do those drills. Train them and train them. I was interested to read another ill informed comment from the one with no formal training saying how joint locks were useless because they don't work in a real fight. Classic comment.  The answer to both is the same. If you are trying to apply a particular lock or if you are trying to use a certain defensive combination in a real or even realistic environment, it will most likely fail unless you are big enough or strong enough to overpower your opponent.



Okay, so it's a drill to try to demonstrate… something… but not something you'd advise, although you're not saying not to do them? Yeah… still a little lost here, mate… 

That said, I agree that going in, looking for a particular lock etc is a recipe for failure.



K-man said:


> What I am saying is, in a real situation, unless you are working with predictive response, a fight is total chaos. The way I explain it is, you must train to be able to handle attacks of any type from any direction at any time. That may involve you covering or instinctively blocking the attack until you recognise the position you are in and react instinctively to that situation. You work with what you are given. It is often stated as, "learn the technique, drill the technique, forget the technique." Only then can you use the technique.
> 
> Not sure if that is what you are referring to but it is in essence the way I look at it.



Okay, was this all about the Shu-Ha-Ri concept, then? Yeah… it's a lot more than that… and, in a way, nothing mentioned here really goes beyond "Shu" anyway… to be honest… as it's really not anything to do with "ways" of drilling things… 



K-man said:


> Exactly. Kata is another generic term with different meaning in different styles. What it is is a method of transferring information. If we used the analogy of a book it could be anything from a detailed technical instruction manual to a book with an introductory description at the top and the rest of the page left for your personal notes. It could be a book where one page follows the previous page or it could be a 'pick a path' variety where the order of the pages is determined by the reader. Others may look at kata as an encyclopaedia of terms.
> 
> What it isn't is a type of training that is the same across all styles and that is why we have such opinionated debate when kata is termed useless by people who have no detailed understanding of what kata is and how it varies in its application.



Hmm, I'd suggest that kata (itself) is actually a fairly definite term in a way… it's particular to a culture, fairly loaded with meaning (from that culture), and, while it has a range of ways it can be expressed, it is always, at it's heart, the same thing.

There's a big difference between a pre-arranged sequence of actions and a kata, is what I'm saying… 



K-man said:


> It is the point of the thread, but I fear we will not reach consensus. All I'm saying is we can define the term however we like. We could even take the definition that you provided above. It changes nothing. People will still debate what is and what isn't RBSD.



I guess my biggest issue with arguing about definitions is that, oftentimes, the arguments are coming from persons who don't know what the terms actually mean in the first place… so they're arguing about what they think they mean, rather than what they actually do. I'm only concerned with what they actually mean. Frankly, other opinions couldn't mean less to me in this regard.



K-man said:


> 'Broad' being the operative word. As a result, I still believe when people wish to discuss RBSD, they will still have to define the context. It becomes rather pointless when someone says "A,B,C" in a RBSD discussion and someone else says "that isn't RBSD". It doesn't matter if it is not RBSD according to the strict definition. What matters is the discussion provided in the context provided by the OP.



Well, yes and no… the issue with that approach is that you end up discussing anything but RBSD, as no-one really even takes what it is on board in the first place. You might as well talk about methods of training dogs, and have someone talking about how tigers learn in the wild, saying that they aren't beholden to the strict definition of "dog" or "training"… the discussion can't actually be what it's supposed to be about.



K-man said:


> Exactly, and that is why it becomes virtually impossible to provide a catch all definition.



Hmm… no… it's an argument as to why it's essential to have one in the first place.



K-man said:


> Surely lethal depends on how far you take a particular technique.



That'll depend, really… in many cases, it's a matter of intent, which then leads you towards more or less "lethal" techniques… but that's getting a little off topic here… 



K-man said:


> Whether you would ever consider using that technique in a real situation is another discussion. Krav for example does teach weapon disarms, then to use that weapon if required. Same with Systema. So within your definition those systems become combatives. I prefer to just call it overlap. If you are travelling overseas in some of the more lawless areas I can imagine those skills could be beneficial. There are other situations where I would see lethal use of force could be justified, not necessarily optimal.



Well, I'd class them as Combatives systems as they are military based, and fit the hallmarks that would be expected. I mean, my systems include weapon defence and disarmament, followed by using the weapon against the opponent… but that doesn't make them "Combatives" systems, as the context, origin, aims, and more don't fit such hallmarks.

And yeah, sometimes Combatives approaches are a better "civilian" option… of course, most areas where that's the case are largely military-controlled, or militarised areas in the first place… 



K-man said:


> Still sufficiently loose to provide decades of debate on MT.



Ha, I do what I can… 



K-man said:


> But RBSD still includes "the fight" and if you get to that stage I would say it is still the most important part. When all else fails .... !



Sure… but it's only the most important part in that moment. And that's only so you can survive to get to the "post fight" stage.


----------



## MJS (Jan 7, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> 
> 
> But, frankly, far closer to TMA training than RBSD training… that was my point. Unlike one is not like to another...



So, in your opinion, the way a boxer or someone who does MMA, doesn't move, apply their strikes, in the same fashion as someone who does RBSD?  Looking at some clips out there, the punching I see doesn't look like what I've seen in many TMA dojos.  Sure, they may be the same punches, but the application is different.  For example:










> Ha, well, yeah… Senshido is very much an RBSD system… Richard Dmitri has been at the forefront of the RBSD "movement" for a while now, and I've mentioned him, his group, and his successor a number of times in this thread alone as a reference point to what RBSD is…
> 
> And, of course, I completely agree… this is a big part of the distinction I've been trying to get across… but none of that makes any of it like a "boxing oriented or MMA-ish".



OK.  See my post above.





> Sorry, not following here… are you comparing drilling methods between systems? Drills with movement don't necessarily make something RBSD… although it's more likely that they'll take that form there… as we have a range of such in the martial arts side of things…



Yes, that's what I'm doing.  I'm sure you've seen both a TMA class and a RBSD class.  Do they look anything alike? 





> Sure… but, to be frank, the Kenpo factor is the least important there… you could do that with any physical combative system… and turning Kenpo into an RBSD approach takes it away from being Kenpo… in the end, it just becomes a Kenpo based, or influenced, RBSD system.



LOL, well of course, and I used Kenpo simply as an example.  I'm sure you can insert pretty much any art.  Hell, we can use the Bujinkan.  Do you personally teach your classes the way the typical Bujinkan class is taught? 





> I'm in agreement with everything up until the last sentence there, my friend… odds are that you aren't really going to see "a set of moves" at all in an RBSD approach… depending on the group, and what exactly you're watching, of course…



OK.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> why there is violence in the security industry. And whether or not a person can de escalate based on their posts.
> 
> there is an image of the industry that does not reflect the reality of the job.



Er, because we are for it. The trick is we do not look for it. Fine, if it seeks and then finds us with absolute intent, then we will deal with it. We are not there to start a fight. Suggest you start to speak from experience, a bouncer (okay I said it) would not be asking that question, one should know


----------



## drop bear (Jan 7, 2015)

K-man said:


> OK. So you obviously aren't going to detail your training background and I assume you barely comprehensible reply is suggesting I don't understand why there is violence in the security industry.  Really?
> 
> And then I don't understand that someone can de-escalate based on their posts.  Well based on their posts I would suggest that there are many guys on MT who are well qualified in that area and based on their posts I believe them.
> 
> ...



because i de escalate for a living against real people who want to hurt me. And that dedicated training in de escalation is generally terrible.

to achieve the hundreds of fights i have attempted to de escalate tens of thousands. Only a small percentage result in violence.

So your conclusions are wrong due to your lack of practical knowledge.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 7, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Er, because we are for it. The trick is we do not look for it. Fine, if it seeks and then finds us with absolute intent, then we will deal with it. We are not there to start a fight. Suggest you start to speak from experience, a bouncer (okay I said it) would not be asking that question, one should know



No the accusation laid is if you  get into fights then obviously you cant avoid them. In the industry i get this a lot. The expectation that i can magic people out of a venue.

And that is not always the case.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> No the accusation laid is if you  get into fights then obviously you cant avoid them. In the industry i get this a lot. The expectation that i can magic people out of a venue.
> 
> And that is not always the case.



Of course not, but one should strive to make it that way. The former is just paraphrasing me.


----------



## K-man (Jan 7, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Sure… but risk management and avoidance strategies (which is more what you're referring to there) isn't the same as de-escalation… that's something that's applied when you're in the early stages of an actual situation, and are past the avoidance opportunities… which is the context and stage you find yourself in when de-escalation is required.



Sure. But in simplifying the concept of SD one flows from one to the other.



Chris Parker said:


> A consensus isn't needed, honestly. What is needed is an understanding of the context of the applied term… to take the "paralyse" situation from the other thread, Dirty Dog was applying the term in a medical, clinical context, whereas drop bear was talking more about causing the opponent to stop what they're doing (stop attacking), both mentally and physically… in essence, "paralysing" their forward movement, even if only momentarily.



Yeah, but I'm not convinced DB recognises the difference and at the very least he was using loose terminology. His description pretty much implied that as soon as the trachea was grabbed a person would 'freeze', again a similar concept. No trained person is going to react that way no matter however you want to describe it.



Chris Parker said:


> Again, it comes down to RBSD being a particular method/approach to the concept of self defence, which can be expressed in a number of ways… but the core definition/meaning of RBSD doesn't change. Again, think of my Kenjutsu analogy… there are literally dozens, if not hundreds of Kenjutsu systems, which will share some commonality (they all teach the combative use of a sword, for instance), but even in that, the variations are boundless. That doesn't mean that Kenjutsu defies classification, as it's too broad… just that a broad definition can still be applied without contravening the variety that exists.




Something someone else wrote:


> Putting things into categories can be helpful, but we have to remember that the categories are usually artificial.





Chris Parker said:


> So, leaving off the "block/no block" idea (that's something that we might cover at a later point…), you're saying that you start with a "set response", yeah? Cool, that's (again) what I was expecting.


Only for the purpose of the exercise. I just wasn't being specific in what the response should be as different people will train different responses. I would normally train it with a likely/realistic response rather than an artificially contrived one.



Chris Parker said:


> Okay… to me, there are issues with that drill, unless you're intending it to show the perceived flaw you're mentioning at the end there, yeah? I guess my question is, in which part of my quote is this a response to? I'm a little lost here…


Yes, I am pointing out the flaw in the drill but it is the type of drilling you will see in most places. 

I was expanding on:


Chris Parker said:


> And as far as not teaching specific responses, are you sure you're not? I mean, they might not be something that pre-existed before you showed them in that class, but if you're giving something as a response to an attack that the students are following, that's a specific response… it's not the only one, or the only possibility, of course… but it's still a specific response (in that moment). Or do you show ideas, and get the students to find whatever they might be able to get out of that? That's an approach I've seen (I'm honestly not fond of it, but some like it), so I'm just getting some clarification here…






Chris Parker said:


> Okay, so it's a drill to try to demonstrate… something… but not something you'd advise, although you're not saying not to do them? Yeah… still a little lost here, mate…


I'm suggesting that drills are fine as long as people understand why they are drilling. Some styles have hundreds of drills so that every possible attack is covered. The problem arises when the attack is varied, so I don't have any set drills. We used to call them 'pre-arranged sparring', one of the many things I abandoned some years back.



Chris Parker said:


> That said, I agree that going in, looking for a particular lock etc is a recipe for failure.


Yet you will read time after time someone who can't use them declaring that they don't work. If you look deeper I would be sure that in most instances they are attempting to move to that technique from the wrong start point, something you could only do with brute force.



Chris Parker said:


> Okay, was this all about the Shu-Ha-Ri concept, then? Yeah… it's a lot more than that… and, in a way, nothing mentioned here really goes beyond "Shu" anyway… to be honest… as it's really not anything to do with "ways" of drilling things…


No. Shuhari was in a different context. As you say, what I was describing would only be 'Shu'.



Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, I'd suggest that kata (itself) is actually a fairly definite term in a way… it's particular to a culture, fairly loaded with meaning (from that culture), and, while it has a range of ways it can be expressed, it is always, at it's heart, the same thing.


Interesting that you qualified your response, "in a way". That's exactly what I was saying. The terminology is the same but the meaning can vary between styles. For example my kata has no set interpretation as it is a single person sequence of techniques. The application of those techniques is up to the individual as the original meaning of the kata was never passed down, if indeed it ever existed. I have never seen your kata but from what you have written in the past I am assuming that with your two man kata the meaning is evident.



Chris Parker said:


> There's a big difference between a pre-arranged sequence of actions and a kata, is what I'm saying…


Sure.




Chris Parker said:


> I guess my biggest issue with arguing about definitions is that, oftentimes, the arguments are coming from persons who don't know what the terms actually mean in the first place… so they're arguing about what they think they mean, rather than what they actually do. I'm only concerned with what they actually mean. Frankly, other opinions couldn't mean less to me in this regard.


Again, true. But it is very difficult to produce a definition that is water tight. If we could do that a billion lawyers would suddenly be without a vocation.



Chris Parker said:


> Well, yes and no… the issue with that approach is that you end up discussing anything but RBSD, as no-one really even takes what it is on board in the first place. You might as well talk about methods of training dogs, and have someone talking about how tigers learn in the wild, saying that they aren't beholden to the strict definition of "dog" or "training"… the discussion can't actually be what it's supposed to be about.


Read any thread on MT. How long does it take before one of the dogs grabs it and tries to run off with it? Some people are set in their ways and will never take anything on board. Oh what bliss, to know that your cup is always full. 



Chris Parker said:


> Hmm… no… it's an argument as to why it's essential to have one in the first place.


The arguement is valid, the outcome somewhat different. Achieving a definition that is acceptable to all is only a remote possibility.



Chris Parker said:


> Well, I'd class them as Combatives systems as they are military based, and fit the hallmarks that would be expected. I mean, my systems include weapon defence and disarmament, followed by using the weapon against the opponent… but that doesn't make them "Combatives" systems, as the context, origin, aims, and more don't fit such hallmarks.


Yes, but ... 
Your weapon systems are integral to your traditional training in the same way that I would say weapons are integral in a combatives system. In RBSD the use of weapons has to be addressed. How it is treated causes the overlap. 



Chris Parker said:


> Sure… but it's only the most important part in that moment. And that's only so you can survive to get to the "post fight" stage.


Without learning to fight you may not reach the "post fight" stage in any meaningful way. So I would still argue that although all the elements of RBSD are important, the ability to physically take care of yourself is your insurance policy when the other bits have failed.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 7, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Of course not, but one should strive to make it that way. The former is just paraphrasing me.



I don't disagree. I am suggesting that there are more factors that lead to violence than a guards people skills.

And that the general public is sold a lie regarding what a guard can reasonably achieve.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> And that the general public is sold a lie regarding what a guard can reasonably achieve.



Yeah, but that is on you. The job is the job, not just the person


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> because i de escalate for a living against real people who want to hurt me. And that dedicated training in de escalation is generally terrible.
> 
> to achieve the hundreds of fights i have attempted to de escalate tens of thousands. Only a small percentage result in violence.
> 
> So your conclusions are wrong due to your lack of practical knowledge.



Bluntly, I am going to call BS on this.

"[T]ens of thousands"? Really?
10,000 fights over a 10 year period would be 1000 fights per year. That means that if you work 5 days a week, every week, with no vacation, you'd be involved in 3.8 fights per day.
And that is for a SINGLE ten of thousands.
For 20,000 (which is the absolute minimum to qualify as "tens of thousands", you'd have to be involved in 7.6 fights per day.
Where's that "BS Flag" smiley?







We will have to settle for that...


----------



## drop bear (Jan 7, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Bluntly, I am going to call BS on this.
> 
> "[T]ens of thousands"? Really?
> 10,000 fights over a 10 year period would be 1000 fights per year. That means that if you work 5 days a week, every week, with no vacation, you'd be involved in 3.8 fights per day.
> ...



And then if you read the post that would be fights avoided not engaged in.

And its 20 years.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 7, 2015)

So if my maths is correct. 20 ejections or refusals a week. Over 20 years with 4 weeks off a year for holidays puts me around 19,000


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So if my maths is correct. 20 ejections or refusals a week. Over 20 years with 4 weeks off a year for holidays puts me around 19,000



I'm not real familiar with the industry - would "refusals" be when you don't allow someone to enter the club where you are working?

I know you have to treat each rejection/refusal as a _potential_ fight and be prepared accordingly, but what percentage would you say are actual _imminent_ fights (where someone is just about to start throwing punches if you don't calm him down)?


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So if my maths is correct. 20 ejections or refusals a week. Over 20 years with 4 weeks off a year for holidays puts me around 19,000



20 a week, what? That is a nights worth


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 7, 2015)

K-man said:


> Read any thread on MT. How long does it take before one of the dogs grabs it and tries to run off with it? Some people are set in their ways and will never take anything on board. Oh what bliss, to know that your cup is always full.




They could be like this though........


----------



## Steve (Jan 7, 2015)

K-man said:


> Read any thread on MT. How long does it take before one of the dogs grabs it and tries to run off with it? Some people are set in their ways and will never take anything on board. Oh what bliss, to know that your cup is always full.


Delicious irony.


----------



## Steve (Jan 7, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> I think it might be time to get some clear definitions out there:
> 
> TMA (Traditional Martial Art): A systematised and codified approach to a particular culturally based expression of violent encounters, focused on expressing lessons through combative techniques and other methods. Not necessarily designed to deal with modern (or even "realistic") violence.
> 
> ...


Are you proposing these as a common understanding of the terms?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 7, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> 20 a week, what? That is a nights worth



yes.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 7, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm not real familiar with the industry - would "refusals" be when you don't allow someone to enter the club where you are working?
> 
> I know you have to treat each rejection/refusal as a _potential_ fight and be prepared accordingly, but what percentage would you say are actual _imminent_ fights (where someone is just about to start throwing punches if you don't calm him down)?



It depends on your approach. If you have good technique. Not that many.

about to throw punches is relative. There are plenty of people who say they are going to. But probably wont.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 8, 2015)

drop bear said:


> because i de escalate for a living against real people who want to hurt me. And that dedicated training in de escalation is generally terrible.
> 
> to achieve the hundreds of fights i have attempted to de escalate tens of thousands. Only a small percentage result in violence.
> 
> So your conclusions are wrong due to your lack of practical knowledge.


If you have tens of thousands of people wanting to hurt you them maybe you should have a closer look at your personality.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 8, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> If you have tens of thousands of people wanting to hurt you them maybe you should have a closer look at your personality.



more hugs you think?


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 8, 2015)

drop bear said:


> more hugs you think?



Maybe lol.


----------



## Buka (Jan 8, 2015)

I bounced and worked the door for ten years. De-escalation is based on communication skills and reading people. Gin mills (bars/clubs) are first and foremost a business. Fights are bad for business. If they happen on a regular basis you'll get closed down. At least here in the civilized world. 

As a police officer, you know which clubs have a rep for trouble, a rep for drugs etc. The workers at that club better have good communication skills dealing with responding officers, too.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 8, 2015)

Buka said:


> I bounced and worked the door for ten years. De-escalation is based on communication skills and reading people. Gin mills (bars/clubs) are first and foremost a business. Fights are bad for business. If they happen on a regular basis you'll get closed down. At least here in the civilized world.
> 
> As a police officer, you know which clubs have a rep for trouble, a rep for drugs etc. The workers at that club better have good communication skills dealing with responding officers, too.



I worked security for years for the state and some of that in hospitals and one of those hospitals with a mental health and detox unit and that is exactly it "De-escalation is based on communication skills and reading people"... and fights are bad for your health but sometimes unavoidable... I described much my experience in that business as "talking people out of doing the unreasonable things that they have decided to do" ....but I do not think in all my years there I had what I would call a fight, but I did have a lot of take down and restraint situations.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 8, 2015)

drop bear said:


> It depends on your approach. If you have good technique. Not that many.
> 
> about to throw punches is relative. There are plenty of people who say they are going to. But probably wont.



So, as a clarification to your original statement regarding your numbers of de-escalations and fights, would it be accurate to say that you have had close to 20,000 professional encounters with the potential to turn violent (especially if handled badly), and around 10% of them actually did end up turning violent?

(Not implying at all that the encounters which turned violent were necessarily handled badly.)


----------



## drop bear (Jan 8, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> So, as a clarification to your original statement regarding your numbers of de-escalations and fights, would it be accurate to say that you have had close to 20,000 professional encounters with the potential to turn violent (especially if handled badly), and around 10% of them actually did end up turning violent?
> 
> (Not implying at all that the encounters which turned violent were necessarily handled badly.)



yeah pretty much.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 8, 2015)

Probably less than ten per cent. And it would depend where i worked. The high violence venues got old pretty quick.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 9, 2015)

MJS said:


> So, in your opinion, the way a boxer or someone who does MMA, doesn't move, apply their strikes, in the same fashion as someone who does RBSD?  Looking at some clips out there, the punching I see doesn't look like what I've seen in many TMA dojos.  Sure, they may be the same punches, but the application is different.  For example:



Well… yeah, I am. But of course, it's not that simple… 

The first thing to remember is that, really, it's almost impossible to find someone who is just "RBSD"… it's more an approach to training that can be (and is) applied to any number of other (primarily combative) systems… which means that, by necessity, RBSD systems "fighting" aspect will always draw from other mechanical methods. And yeah, that can certainly include boxing… or look somewhat "MMA-ish"… but that's not the same thing.

The question you have to ask is why many of the RBSD systems look more like boxing… and the reason, fairly simply, is that, particularly in the Western zeitgeist, boxing is dominant in our image of violence. It has become so pervasive in our imagery that it has become the "standard" form of what is seen, whether the persons involved have any training or background at all… they will still look like "boxers" to a fair degree.

Additionally, as it's such a common expression, it can easily serve as a "common language" for bringing together practitioners from disparate approaches. When it comes to the video above, a few things to keep in mind… one is that I've trained with Deane… what's being shown up there is part of his "street combatives" approach (street fighting/protection), not his RBSD methodology (they are separate)… so looking to it as an example of "RBSD fighting methods" doesn't really work. Additionally, part of Deane's background is his boxing training… so it's natural that he'd design something around that… other RBSD instructors have other backgrounds, which lead them to different expressions.

Finally, of course, although there is a range of technical methods similar to what is seen in boxing, it's really not that similar past simple superficial aspects. Deane actually makes a number of comments pointing out the distinction between what he's showing, and a "boxing" approach. Tactically, it's quite different… distance-wise, it's quite different (focused on in-fighting only)… time-wise, it's quite different… even mechanically there are differences… what's "available" is different… and so on.

So yeah, there is quite a difference between the way a boxer does things, or the way an MMA athlete does things, and the way things are done in RBSD systems.



MJS said:


> OK.  See my post above.



Likewise.



MJS said:


> Yes, that's what I'm doing.  I'm sure you've seen both a TMA class and a RBSD class.  Do they look anything alike?



Mike, it may help to remember that I teach both TMA and RBSD… in the same class. As separate sections. So, when I'm talking about what RBSD is, and what TMA's are, I'm not making guesses… this is what I do.

As far as "do they look anything alike", well, that depends on what you're looking for… our traditional methods do inform our modern (RBSD) approach to a large degree… in everything from mechanical and technical approaches, to tactical concepts, principles, and more. I can identify a lot of our TMA approach in our RBSD methods… but that's to be expected, as I'm teaching both at the same time (well, separate sections of the class, but to the same group within the same class structure). Of course, it's just as easy to point out differences… the essence of our postural concepts are the same, but the expression is very different… same with the striking, same with the grappling, and so on. And, of course, the RBSD side is a lot more than the combative engagement… which is very different to the TMA side of things.



MJS said:


> LOL, well of course, and I used Kenpo simply as an example.  I'm sure you can insert pretty much any art.  Hell, we can use the Bujinkan.  Do you personally teach your classes the way the typical Bujinkan class is taught?



Ha, I certainly hope not!

Hmm… maybe that was a bit harsh… but no, my TMA side of things, although largely the same syllabus, is done is a rather different fashion to the Bujinkan classes I've attended over the years… and I haven't seen anything close to what we do in the RBSD side of things, to be honest. I'm not sure what that has to do with the comment, though… 



MJS said:


> OK.





K-man said:


> Sure. But in simplifying the concept of SD one flows from one to the other.



Well, yeah, there's overlap to a degree… but not so much. De-escalation is needed when the awareness/risk management side has failed, and gone past… I don't know that I'd refer to that as "flowing from one to the other"… as much as worsening sets of conditions as you progress.



K-man said:


> Yeah, but I'm not convinced DB recognises the difference and at the very least he was using loose terminology. His description pretty much implied that as soon as the trachea was grabbed a person would 'freeze', again a similar concept. No trained person is going to react that way no matter however you want to describe it.



Well, the first thing to look at is whether or not it's being applied against a "trained" person… but, I have to say, I am far more on drop bear's side there… I'm not sure he worded it as well as it could have been, and the use of the term "paralysed", when Dirty Dog was applying it in a clinical/medical fashion, was something that went on longer than it needed to… but the reality is that, yeah, when you suddenly attack someone's airways (threaten their air supply), the initial, instinctive response is to stop what else you were doing, and focus on the new threat… which does, mentally at least, "paralyse" them for a moment or two. It's not a long-term thing, but it is what happens. We teach the same thing, and I've personally applied it myself.

Honestly, in this case, he was right, in essence. "Freeze"… maybe not… but the reaction would be the equivalent of it.



K-man said:


> Something someone else wrote:
> 
> 
> > Putting things into categories can be useful, but we have to remember that categories are usually artificial.



Hmm… it's an interesting quote… I'd prefer to see it in context. The only usage I can find is on a forum by a poster in a discussion of whether or not Ebola (or any virus, really) is "alive" or not… and the level of discourse there didn't exactly thrill me (the terms used, including the name of the forum and the poster using the quote, would trip the filters here I feel… so I'm not linking it)… but let's look at what it actually is.

The quote is in relation to scientific categorisation, and pointing out that the strict adherence to exclusionary categories can have issues when some items seem to possess traits of different categories… or simply not fit neatly into one or another. That's all well and good… but is, in a real way, the opposite of the point I was making. The form of categorisation I was using was less exclusionary, and was rather largely inclusive of a wide array of variations… however, for the category to have any meaning, there must be certain requirements. Those requirements are not at the exclusion of other aspects, but were instead picked to give more of a "bare minimum", combined with the most common and easily identifiable traits.

So, interesting quote, but not sure that it actually applies.



K-man said:


> Only for the purpose of the exercise. I just wasn't being specific in what the response should be as different people will train different responses. I would normally train it with a likely/realistic response rather than an artificially contrived one.



Sure, and my point was more that set responses are required, at the very least as a "jumping off" point. Of course, there's nothing in the idea of set responses that restricts, or denies the usage of a likely or realistic response… or that they have to be "artificially contrived". I'm not sure why you might think that they would have to be, really.



K-man said:


> Yes, I am pointing out the flaw in the drill but it is the type of drilling you will see in most places.



Really? I don't see that type of flaw being deliberately presented in many places… in fact, it kinda seems to go against productive drills. I do see drills trained to the point of failure, and that's an approach I agree with… but deliberately doing it so that the techniques don't work… that one's lost on me.



K-man said:


> I was expanding on:



Okay...



K-man said:


> I'm suggesting that drills are fine as long as people understand why they are drilling. Some styles have hundreds of drills so that every possible attack is covered. The problem arises when the attack is varied, so I don't have any set drills. We used to call them 'pre-arranged sparring', one of the many things I abandoned some years back.



Yeah… honestly, I'm not seeing varied attacks as a flaw in the drilling, if anything, if that presents a problem, it's the lack of awareness of what the drills are teaching, not the drilling methodology itself...



K-man said:


> Yet you will read time after time someone who can't use them declaring that they don't work. If you look deeper I would be sure that in most instances they are attempting to move to that technique from the wrong start point, something you could only do with brute force.



Probably. There are other possibilities, but it amounts to the same thing.



K-man said:


> No. Shuhari was in a different context. As you say, what I was describing would only be 'Shu'.



Cool.



K-man said:


> Interesting that you qualified your response, "in a way". That's exactly what I was saying. The terminology is the same but the meaning can vary between styles. For example my kata has no set interpretation as it is a single person sequence of techniques. The application of those techniques is up to the individual as the original meaning of the kata was never passed down, if indeed it ever existed. I have never seen your kata but from what you have written in the past I am assuming that with your two man kata the meaning is evident.



Ha, you have seen some of my kata, for the record… I just didn't identify them for you (and, honestly, was giving variations anyway…)

But, to the main… look, to be honest, I only used the qualifier "in a way" to soften the message… frankly, all kata are, at their heart, the same, with the same ideals, aims, and place in a system that uses them… the only real difference is in the expression of how kata is presented in the systems. 

Oh, and with our paired kata, and the meaning being evident… not as much as you might think… just so you know… ha!



K-man said:


> Sure.



So we agree there… cool.



K-man said:


> Again, true. But it is very difficult to produce a definition that is water tight. If we could do that a billion lawyers would suddenly be without a vocation.



Possibly…. but not necessarily, to be honest. Some things can be defined quite clearly… others can be a bit more vague, but the heart of the definition (which is what I've been addressing) is still very much the core of the issue.



K-man said:


> Read any thread on MT. How long does it take before one of the dogs grabs it and tries to run off with it? Some people are set in their ways and will never take anything on board. Oh what bliss, to know that your cup is always full.



Eh, again, opinions not based in knowledge and understanding of the topic don't really matter much to me… and yeah, I know how that sounds… but hey, it's also the way it is.



K-man said:


> The arguement is valid, the outcome somewhat different. Achieving a definition that is acceptable to all is only a remote possibility.



Yeah… again, acceptable to all isn't what I'm concerned with...



K-man said:


> Yes, but ...
> Your weapon systems are integral to your traditional training in the same way that I would say weapons are integral in a combatives system. In RBSD the use of weapons has to be addressed. How it is treated causes the overlap.



Sure… but the emphasis is a big thing to consider as well.



K-man said:


> Without learning to fight you may not reach the "post fight" stage in any meaningful way. So I would still argue that although all the elements of RBSD are important, the ability to physically take care of yourself is your insurance policy when the other bits have failed.



I can see that… of course, that doesn't change the way RBSD systems are structured and designed, or their emphasis… in many cases, they will tell you to go for a combatives or martial art system to cover that aspect.



Steve said:


> Are you proposing these as a common understanding of the terms?



In a way, yes. Unless you (or anyone else) can find an argument against them.


----------



## K-man (Jan 9, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, the first thing to look at is whether or not it's being applied against a "trained" person… but, I have to say, I am far more on drop bear's side there… I'm not sure he worded it as well as it could have been, and the use of the term "paralysed", when Dirty Dog was applying it in a clinical/medical fashion, was something that went on longer than it needed to… but the reality is that, yeah, when you suddenly attack someone's airways (threaten their air supply), the initial, instinctive response is to stop what else you were doing, and focus on the new threat… which does, mentally at least, "paralyse" them for a moment or two. It's not a long-term thing, but it is what happens. We teach the same thing, and I've personally applied it myself.
> 
> Honestly, in this case, he was right, in essence. "Freeze"… maybe not… but the reaction would be the equivalent of it.


I'm not suggesting you can't use the technique. In subsequent posts DB finally described the choke he was referring to as grabbing the trachea. Certainly it's going to get your attention and you might even get a momentary freeze, but a trained person is going to deal with it pretty quickly unless the person attacking is actually trying to crush the trachea, potentially lethal. Even then I would suggest the the technique I teach against it would work quickly and effectively in the time taken to consolidate the grip.



Chris Parker said:


> Hmm… it's an interesting quote… I'd prefer to see it in context. The only usage I can find is on a forum by a poster in a discussion of whether or not Ebola (or any virus, really) is "alive" or not… and the level of discourse there didn't exactly thrill me (the terms used, including the name of the forum and the poster using the quote, would trip the filters here I feel… so I'm not linking it)… but let's look at what it actually is.
> 
> So, interesting quote, but not sure that it actually applies.


I only included it as a quote because I didn't write it. It doesn't need a context. All I was getting at is that even when you categorise your are using some form of criteria to determine what will be included. Others can agree or disagree and that is the problem we will normally encounter.



Chris Parker said:


> Sure, and my point was more that set responses are required, at the very least as a "jumping off" point. Of course, there's nothing in the idea of set responses that restricts, or denies the usage of a likely or realistic response… or that they have to be "artificially contrived". I'm not sure why you might think that they would have to be, really.


I think you are reading far more into what I wrote than was intended. By set response I wanted a response that was firstly a part of normal training and one that could be reasonably expected to be used in a real situation rather than making something up for the point of the exercise.



Chris Parker said:


> Really? I don't see that type of flaw being deliberately presented in many places… in fact, it kinda seems to go against productive drills. I do see drills trained to the point of failure, and that's an approach I agree with… but deliberately doing it so that the techniques don't work… that one's lost on me.


You were the one who introduce 'flaw'. I thought I understood what you were saying but obviously I didn't. The drill wasn't a flawed drill. It is the expectation of how you can use that drill that may be flawed, which after all was the whole point of the description I wrote.



Chris Parker said:


> Yeah… honestly, I'm not seeing varied attacks as a flaw in the drilling, if anything, if that presents a problem, it's the lack of awareness of what the drills are teaching, not the drilling methodology itself...



That's more like it.



Chris Parker said:


> Possibly…. but not necessarily, to be honest. Some things can be defined quite clearly… others can be a bit more vague, but the heart of the definition (which is what I've been addressing) is still very much the core of the issue.


An admirable intent.


----------



## Steve (Jan 9, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> In a way, yes. Unless you (or anyone else) can find an argument against them.


I think it's helpful to know what you mean when you use certain words, provided you understand that your definitions may not be universally accepted.  If you get that, then it's all good.  The concern I have is that you think those are the only true, correct definition of those terms.  If that's the case, there will undoubtedly be misunderstandings and unnecessary back and forth down the road.


----------



## MJS (Jan 10, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Well… yeah, I am. But of course, it's not that simple…
> 
> The first thing to remember is that, really, it's almost impossible to find someone who is just "RBSD"… it's more an approach to training that can be (and is) applied to any number of other (primarily combative) systems… which means that, by necessity, RBSD systems "fighting" aspect will always draw from other mechanical methods. And yeah, that can certainly include boxing… or look somewhat "MMA-ish"… but that's not the same thing.



OK.  And to be clear, I regret using MMA/boxing...lol..as it seems to have caused confusion.  I didn't mean to imply that it was the same.  Anyways....I would say that if you were to seek out a RBSD guy, ie: Dmitri, Franco, etc, it'd be best to already have a solid background to draw from.  I've seen some of Rich's stuff.  IMO, anyone without a base of some sort, is probably going to be lost.  



> The question you have to ask is why many of the RBSD systems look more like boxing… and the reason, fairly simply, is that, particularly in the Western zeitgeist, boxing is dominant in our image of violence. It has become so pervasive in our imagery that it has become the "standard" form of what is seen, whether the persons involved have any training or background at all… they will still look like "boxers" to a fair degree.



OK.  



> Additionally, as it's such a common expression, it can easily serve as a "common language" for bringing together practitioners from disparate approaches. When it comes to the video above, a few things to keep in mind… one is that I've trained with Deane… what's being shown up there is part of his "street combatives" approach (street fighting/protection), not his RBSD methodology (they are separate)… so looking to it as an example of "RBSD fighting methods" doesn't really work. Additionally, part of Deane's background is his boxing training… so it's natural that he'd design something around that… other RBSD instructors have other backgrounds, which lead them to different expressions.



OK.



> Finally, of course, although there is a range of technical methods similar to what is seen in boxing, it's really not that similar past simple superficial aspects. Deane actually makes a number of comments pointing out the distinction between what he's showing, and a "boxing" approach. Tactically, it's quite different… distance-wise, it's quite different (focused on in-fighting only)… time-wise, it's quite different… even mechanically there are differences… what's "available" is different… and so on.
> 
> So yeah, there is quite a difference between the way a boxer does things, or the way an MMA athlete does things, and the way things are done in RBSD systems.



OK




> Mike, it may help to remember that I teach both TMA and RBSD… in the same class. As separate sections. So, when I'm talking about what RBSD is, and what TMA's are, I'm not making guesses… this is what I do.



Oh, I didn't mean to say that you were making guesses.  



> As far as "do they look anything alike", well, that depends on what you're looking for… our traditional methods do inform our modern (RBSD) approach to a large degree… in everything from mechanical and technical approaches, to tactical concepts, principles, and more. I can identify a lot of our TMA approach in our RBSD methods… but that's to be expected, as I'm teaching both at the same time (well, separate sections of the class, but to the same group within the same class structure). Of course, it's just as easy to point out differences… the essence of our postural concepts are the same, but the expression is very different… same with the striking, same with the grappling, and so on. And, of course, the RBSD side is a lot more than the combative engagement… which is very different to the TMA side of things.



OK





> Ha, I certainly hope not!



LOL, yeah I had a feeling you'd get a chuckle out of that. 



> Hmm… maybe that was a bit harsh… but no, my TMA side of things, although largely the same syllabus, is done is a rather different fashion to the Bujinkan classes I've attended over the years… and I haven't seen anything close to what we do in the RBSD side of things, to be honest. I'm not sure what that has to do with the comment, though…



No, I didn't think it was harsh. LOL!


----------



## drop bear (Jan 10, 2015)

Interesting regarding whether you should drill set patterns.

 far as  prearranged drills go i still use set escapes in sparring. They know what i am going to do because we have both trained the same system.

And yet the escapes still work.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 10, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> In a way, yes. Unless you (or anyone else) can find an argument against them.



I don't think there has been an argument for it though. Other than personal preference.


----------



## Steve (Jan 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I don't think there has been an argument for it though. Other than personal preference.


I think this is pretty much right.   It's more about understanding what you mean when you use a term than a particular definition being correct or incorrect.  Within reason, of course.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 10, 2015)

Talking of this subject, would be beneficial for someone in my line of work to explore this. In my humdrum security role, my lads and I have been discussing current events, sorry atrocities, and while not worried as such, we don't have training that specialist. Working in a technically "open port" under port/marine framework, we been involved with all the UK services. As a personal thing, would RBSD be beneficial?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 10, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Talking of this subject, would be beneficial for someone in my line of work to explore this. In my humdrum security role, my lads and I have been discussing current events, sorry atrocities, and while not worried as such, we don't have training that specialist. Working in a technically "open port" under port/marine framework, we been involved with all the UK services. As a personal thing, would RBSD be beneficial?



you mean anti terrorist stuff?

go find an expert.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 10, 2015)

K-man said:


> I'm not suggesting you can't use the technique. In subsequent posts DB finally described the choke he was referring to as grabbing the trachea. Certainly it's going to get your attention and you might even get a momentary freeze, but a trained person is going to deal with it pretty quickly unless the person attacking is actually trying to crush the trachea, potentially lethal. Even then I would suggest the the technique I teach against it would work quickly and effectively in the time taken to consolidate the grip.



Yeah… there's a few things going on here, and I'm not entirely sure how to put it… 

Look, I have no doubt over your confidence in your technique… I've got some myself… and I'm familiar with the Krav response to a front choke (in many lines, it's the first method taught)… however, such techniques, practiced in the adrenaline free environment of a training hall, can fail to take into account what might be called the "human element"… natural, hard-wired, instinctive responses and so on. There are a range of survival instincts that can trump even a trained response in many cases, especially if the training hasn't taken them into account in the first place, and a sudden, violent threat to the airways is one of them.

Sure, a "trained person" can recover in a quicker time, allowing for a response, but that doesn't stop the action in the first place having it's intended effect ("freezing", at least momentarily). As I mentioned, we not only use this as part of our methods, but I've personally employed it "live in the field", so to speak, and can attest to it's effect. So that's where I'm coming from.



K-man said:


> I only included it as a quote because I didn't write it. It doesn't need a context. All I was getting at is that even when you categorise your are using some form of criteria to determine what will be included. Others can agree or disagree and that is the problem we will normally encounter.



No, it does need a context… there's no indication of what the quote was attributing the purpose and process of categorising to. That alone can change the intent and reading of the quote. I mean, I get what you were getting at, but I don't think it's really either correct across the board, or in this case. Disagreeing based on a lack of knowledge isn't really a concern.



K-man said:


> I think you are reading far more into what I wrote than was intended. By set response I wanted a response that was firstly a part of normal training and one that could be reasonably expected to be used in a real situation rather than making something up for the point of the exercise.



Yeah… which is still a "set response". Again, the idea of it being something that can be "reasonably expected to be used" neither precludes, nor is essential for a "set response".



K-man said:


> You were the one who introduce 'flaw'. I thought I understood what you were saying but obviously I didn't. The drill wasn't a flawed drill. It is the expectation of how you can use that drill that may be flawed, which after all was the whole point of the description I wrote.



What I was identifying as the flaw in the drill was the way you described continuing in a way that the students couldn't make work. That was a flaw in the drilling method… I wasn't saying anything about the responses themselves being flawed… just following the way you described things.



K-man said:


> That's more like it.



Sure.



K-man said:


> An admirable intent.



Hmm… there's no "intent" there… simply an attempt to accurately define various methodologies.



Steve said:


> I think it's helpful to know what you mean when you use certain words, provided you understand that your definitions may not be universally accepted.  If you get that, then it's all good.  The concern I have is that you think those are the only true, correct definition of those terms.  If that's the case, there will undoubtedly be misunderstandings and unnecessary back and forth down the road.



What I mean when I use such terms as DefTacs, RBSD etc is the accurate definition of those terms. It really doesn't matter if such a definition isn't "universally accepted"… evolution isn't "universally accepted", that doesn't really have bearing on what's accurate or correct. The attempt to placate by allowing a definition to be stretched to accommodate whatever anyone wants to define something as is firstly inaccurate, secondly redundant, and thirdly a damn insult to anyone interested in actually knowing what the thing is in the first place.

In other words, I really couldn't care less if people agree or not. The definitions I presented are the accurate definitions. If you disagree, you'd better either have a better definition with more understanding of the topic than myself, or I suggest you accept that I know what I'm talking about, and choose to improve your own understanding by virtue of the information I'm providing.



MJS said:


> OK.  And to be clear, I regret using MMA/boxing...lol..as it seems to have caused confusion.  I didn't mean to imply that it was the same.  Anyways....I would say that if you were to seek out a RBSD guy, ie: Dmitri, Franco, etc, it'd be best to already have a solid background to draw from.  I've seen some of Rich's stuff.  IMO, anyone without a base of some sort, is probably going to be lost.



Okay, that's something I can get behind… and, for the record, is something I've mentioned every time RBSD has been brought up before… and is what I was getting at when I described RBSD methodologies as something that can be applied to (most) any other system of combative application. 



MJS said:


> Oh, I didn't mean to say that you were making guesses.



Thanks. Of course, it can appear that that's the impression, as my definitions are being argued against without any argument against them… which can be why I might see it as guesswork.

Once more, though, my background (and current training and teaching) is made up of traditional martial arts (honestly, far more "traditional" than what most here consider "traditional", when we get down to it), RBSD, and DefTacs methodologies. My Chief Instructor is government certified to create DefTac programs on a number of levels, they have been a part of my education in this area for years, as has RBSD. This is what I do. And, it might be noted, any time such methods are brought up, anyone else here (LEO for DefTacs, for example) who has experience or understanding in the area have never had issues with my definitions.

Of course, this isn't aimed at you, Mike… just trying to be as clear as I can in where my understanding is coming from (for others).



drop bear said:


> Interesting regarding whether you should drill set patterns.
> 
> far as  prearranged drills go i still use set escapes in sparring. They know what i am going to do because we have both trained the same system.
> 
> And yet the escapes still work.



Well, yeah… that's kinda the point of training them in set drills… of course, there's a world of other considerations, to do with the drill itself, what it's designed for, and it's application, all of which have an influence on the methods "still working" in different contexts and constraints.



drop bear said:


> I don't think there has been an argument for it though. Other than personal preference.



There is an argument for it. The argument for it is "these are the definitions". That's the argument. There's nothing about personal preference at all. 



Steve said:


> I think this is pretty much right.   It's more about understanding what you mean when you use a term than a particular definition being correct or incorrect.  Within reason, of course.



No, it's not. This thread asks "What is RBSD?" I've given the definition, expanded on it, corrected misunderstandings, agreed with RBSD instructors definitions, and more. It is specifically about "correct or incorrect"… that's how definitions work.



Transk53 said:


> Talking of this subject, would be beneficial for someone in my line of work to explore this. In my humdrum security role, my lads and I have been discussing current events, sorry atrocities, and while not worried as such, we don't have training that specialist. Working in a technically "open port" under port/marine framework, we been involved with all the UK services. As a personal thing, would RBSD be beneficial?



That'd depend on the system itself… potentially, yeah, it could be. Would it be a "sure thing"? Nope. But I don't think anyone would ever suggest that anything there would be a sure thing… Jim Wagner's system (self-reputedly) teaches such things… we address a range of aspects ourselves, in differing ways…


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> There is an argument for it. The argument for it is "these are the definitions". That's the argument. There's nothing about personal preference at all.



that is entirely personal. The argument against are. These are not the definitions.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah… there's a few things going on here, and I'm not entirely sure how to put it…
> 
> Look, I have no doubt over your confidence in your technique… I've got some myself… and I'm familiar with the Krav response to a front choke (in many lines, it's the first method taught)… however, such techniques, practiced in the adrenaline free environment of a training hall, can fail to take into account what might be called the "human element"… natural, hard-wired, instinctive responses and so on. There are a range of survival instincts that can trump even a trained response in many cases, especially if the training hasn't taken them into account in the first place, and a sudden, violent threat to the airways is one of them.
> 
> Sure, a "trained person" can recover in a quicker time, allowing for a response, but that doesn't stop the action in the first place having it's intended effect ("freezing", at least momentarily). As I mentioned, we not only use this as part of our methods, but I've personally employed it "live in the field", so to speak, and can attest to it's effect. So that's where I'm coming from.



this probably should be in the other thread. But i may as well have another bite at it.

I did mention that if you conditioned for it you could probably. Train away the panic response. But that would involve someone routinely closing off your windpipe. 

I don't believe you can train away that reaction by not wracking on that choke. And i don't think that is how people train that defence.

what we train is to act fast when stuff goes around our neck.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 11, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Talking of this subject, would be beneficial for someone in my line of work to explore this. In my humdrum security role, my lads and I have been discussing current events, sorry atrocities, and while not worried as such, we don't have training that specialist. Working in a technically "open port" under port/marine framework, we been involved with all the UK services. As a personal thing, would RBSD be beneficial?


Maybe you should talk to the company you work for and ask them to send you on some training courses.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> that is entirely personal. The argument against are. These are not the definitions.



No, it's entirely not personal. It's rather objective, actually… as those definitions don't come from me, but from the actual methods themselves.

And, again, in order to argue against the definitions, you'd need to provide something as an alternative that works better. Which, frankly, no-one has. Your take on RBSD has been consistently inaccurate, citing fraudulent individuals and systems that have never identified as RBSD at all, for the record.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> you mean anti terrorist stuff?
> 
> go find an expert.



Already done some seminar stuff on that. Would think that is a different subject in comparison with the thread.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> No, it's entirely not personal. It's rather objective, actually… as those definitions don't come from me, but from the actual methods themselves.
> 
> And, again, in order to argue against the definitions, you'd need to provide something as an alternative that works better. Which, frankly, no-one has. Your take on RBSD has been consistently inaccurate, citing fraudulent individuals and systems that have never identified as RBSD at all, for the record.



i did either link or read a link that effectively made the division into sport ,traditional and rbsd.

from memory that was the jim Wagner link that according to you popularized the term.

which is where i have made the division. 

So it is not from me either. And as far as them being fraudulent. Well that would be up to you to prove. Because i will say they are not from a purely objective stance.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 11, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> That'd depend on the system itself… potentially, yeah, it could be. Would it be a "sure thing"? Nope. But I don't think anyone would ever suggest that anything there would be a sure thing… Jim Wagner's system (self-reputedly) teaches such things… we address a range of aspects ourselves, in differing ways…



Thanks. I will look further into his system.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Already done some seminar stuff on that. Would think that is a different subject in comparison with the thread.



Yes. I very much doubt anybody here is an anti terrorism expert.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 11, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Maybe you should talk to the company you work for and ask them to send you on some training courses.



Yeah we do. However, all these things come down to finance.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Yes. I very much doubt anybody here is an anti terrorism expert.



Don't know and not bothered tbh.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 11, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Yeah we do. However, all these things come down to finance.


Your company might be able to get the courses financed by the government if the ports are important to them.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Jim wagners take on the thing.

"Reality-based systems are those systems that teach the fundamental self-defense techniques that are found in both the traditional-based and sport-based systems, but go a step further by training specifically for modern conflict situations, and eliminating outdated techniques and training methods. Although there are many systems today calling themselves “reality-based,” because they see themselves as training more realistically and have abandoned nonessential customs and traditions, few of them are actually “complete reality-based” systems. In other words, they lack Pre-Conflict and Post-Conflict training in their curriculums and their Conflict training may be lacking simply because they have no real-world experience with criminals, abnormals, or terrorism."


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> i did either link or read a link that effectively made the division into sport ,traditional and rbsd.



Okay… and how does that in any way invalidate the definitions I gave?



drop bear said:


> from memory that was the jim Wagner link that according to you popularized the term.
> 
> which is where i have made the division.



Yes, Jim coined and popularised the term… you really don't have to keep saying "according to you", as, well, that's the reality.



drop bear said:


> So it is not from me either. And as far as them being fraudulent. Well that would be up to you to prove. Because i will say they are not from a purely objective stance.



GIve me a break. You picked "Captain Chris" as an example of what you were then calling "an example of an RBSD strategy"… he's a joke, frankly. No-one legit gives him any time. Proof was provided at the time, if you recall.

Oh, and that's not what "objective" means, you know…


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Okay… and how does that in any way invalidate the definitions I gave?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It does not seem that the emphasis is moved away from physical techniques. But that specific objective based training is added on.

According to you applies until it is according to someone else. Is there a history of the development of the term rbsd according to anybody else?

I have heard more than capitan Chris claim that martial arts are geared towards smaller guys defeating bigger guys. Because technique and strength are these separate things.

you have made the same claims. Sport does not make these claimed because both people have technique. That is why they are matched up.

yes there has been some mis use of the word objective.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> It does not seem that the emphasis is moved away from physical techniques. But that specific objective based training is added on.



Yeah, that's how Jim started his exploration of it, and how he presents his system. But the simple reality is still that the differentiating trait of RBSD systems is an emphasis on the pre- and post-fight conditions and stages, as well as having a lower emphasis on "techniques" over "principles and drilling methods" designed for largely non-technical aspects of conflict.

You have to be able to differentiate between one systems take on it and the entirety of the concept, as embodied by multiple forms.



drop bear said:


> According to you applies until it is according to someone else. Is there a history of the development of the term rbsd according to anybody else?



What? I give the answer to where the term comes from, it's supported by Jim's own press, there are no other alternate theories or claims, but you're still arguing? How about you accept that I know what I'm talking about, and just say thank you for the information, yeah?



drop bear said:


> I have heard more than capitan Chris claim that martial arts are geared towards smaller guys defeating bigger guys. Because technique and strength are these separate things.



Oh boy, way to conflate everything and still come out completely wrong.

To begin with, you were not saying it was a "martial arts" ideal, you were saying it was an RBSD one… I was the one pointing out that the idea of technique trumping strength was a martial arts idea… next, you gave Chris specifically as an RBSD source, which showed that you are completely unaware of what RBSD is in the first place. Finally, all this shows is that you are really out of your depth trying to argue this with me here, so again, I suggest you take a step back, and recognise what you've been given.



drop bear said:


> you have made the same claims. Sport does not make these claimed because both people have technique. That is why they are matched up.



No, it's not why they're matched up, and yes, sports systems do make such claims (Judo saying that, with proper mechanics, and the principle of  seiryoku zen'yo, a smaller person can easily throw a much larger, stronger one as one example, BJJ talking about applying the principles of leverage and a "scientific" application of force to beat a much stronger opponent for another…).

Do you want to try again?



drop bear said:


> yes there has been some mis use of the word objective.



Yeah… which is why I pointed it out. Objective is not the same as skeptical, which is the trait used when you refuse to listen to an answer based on the fact that you don't have any prior knowledge to base it on.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 11, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Your company might be able to get the courses financed by the government if the ports are important to them.



Indeed. It is what is deemed "role needed" that has been talk of us taking on extra roles under the port marine framework. IE something similar to a PCSO. Well will demand there level of salary. Anyway, getting off topic so I read up some more on the OP subject matter. Thanks!


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Indeed. It is what is deemed "role needed" that has been talk of us taking on extra roles under the port marine framework. IE something similar to a PCSO. Well will demand there level of salary. Anyway, getting off topic so I read up some more on the OP subject matter. Thanks!



To be honest the government are more likely to move either the MOD Police Marine division in or the Navy rather than spend money on training civvies if they were that worried. the situation hasn't changed quite honestly since 1969 and the start of the Northern Ireland war, the security state is 'Heightened' as it has been for a long time and truth be told no extra training is actually needed. Rather than 'extra duties' I imagine an increased in personnel would sort.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, that's how Jim started his exploration of it, and how he presents his system. But the simple reality is still that the differentiating trait of RBSD systems is an emphasis on the pre- and post-fight conditions and stages, as well as having a lower emphasis on "techniques" over "principles and drilling methods" designed for largely non-technical aspects of conflict.
> 
> You have to be able to differentiate between one systems take on it and the entirety of the concept, as embodied by multiple forms.



So I could and pre and post fight and suddenly my mma is rbsd. Because there are sports systems and traditional systems that do just that.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> What? I give the answer to where the term comes from, it's supported by Jim's own press, there are no other alternate theories or claims, but you're still arguing? How about you accept that I know what I'm talking about, and just say thank you for the information, yeah?



i am not arguing. I am saying it is according to you. I haven't seen jims press saying he invented or popularized the term rbsd. As i said i couldn't find anything really conclusive on it.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> No, it's not why they're matched up, and yes, sports systems do make such claims (Judo saying that, with proper mechanics, and the principle of seiryoku zen'yo, a smaller person can easily throw a much larger, stronger one as one example, BJJ talking about applying the principles of leverage and a "scientific" application of force to beat a much stronger opponent for another…).



According to you.

look fighters are matched up by ability. Mostly. So it is generally accepted that they are at about the same technical level.

And that is hardly an accurate comparison. If you were to compare people it is generally accepted you compare the same people. So technique against strength wit no technique isn't really reasonable.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, that's how Jim started his exploration of it, and how he presents his system. But the simple reality is still that the differentiating trait of RBSD systems is an emphasis on the pre- and post-fight conditions and stages, as well as having a lower emphasis on "techniques" over "principles and drilling methods" designed for largely non-technical aspects of conflict.
> 
> You have to be able to differentiate between one systems take on it and the entirety of the concept, as embodied by multiple forms.
> 
> ...





Chris Parker said:


> Yeah… which is why I pointed it out. Objective is not the same as skeptical, which is the trait used when you refuse to listen to an answer based on the fact that you don't have any prior knowledge to base it on.



you comments are subjective. Even with him Wagner's support they are still subjective.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh boy, way to conflate everything and still come out completely wrong.
> 
> To begin with, you were not saying it was a "martial arts" ideal, you were saying it was an RBSD one… I was the one pointing out that the idea of technique trumping strength was a martial arts idea… next, you gave Chris specifically as an RBSD source, which showed that you are completely unaware of what RBSD is in the first place. Finally, all this shows is that you are really out of your depth trying to argue this with me here, so again, I suggest you take a step back, and recognise what you've been given



really? Because jim Wagner's link and your posts suggest a leaning towards tactical over technical as being one of the basic fundamentals of rbsd.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 11, 2015)

Unfortunately cannot the full site due to filters, but watched the Gray Man vid by Wagner. Good advice I thought. There one slight thing though, he about blending in with normal looking clothes and not touristy or whatever. Fair enough. I am not going to sit in the Man U SAF main stand in an Everton shirt, I would stick like thumb. Well so does Jim Wagner due to the way he carries himself. I would imagine anybody that skilled would have the same issue blending with clothes only. At least in this context.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Yes. I very much doubt anybody here is an anti terrorism expert.



Why would you assume that?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 11, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> There is an argument for it. The argument for it is "these are the definitions". That's the argument. There's nothing about personal preference at all.





Chris Parker said:


> It is specifically about "correct or incorrect"… that's how definitions work.



Well, no. If your argument was just "these are the definitions", then it would be simply assertion with nothing to back it up. What you are actually saying is "the definitions of these terms are x, because that is what the people who developed and commonly use the terms mean by them." _That_ is how definitions work. There is no god of the dictionary handing out true meanings of words from on high.



Chris Parker said:


> What I mean when I use such terms as DefTacs, RBSD etc is the accurate definition of those terms. It really doesn't matter if such a definition isn't "universally accepted"… evolution isn't "universally accepted", that doesn't really have bearing on what's accurate or correct. The attempt to placate by allowing a definition to be stretched to accommodate whatever anyone wants to define something as is firstly inaccurate, secondly redundant, and thirdly a damn insult to anyone interested in actually knowing what the thing is in the first place.
> 
> In other words, I really couldn't care less if people agree or not. The definitions I presented are the accurate definitions. If you disagree, you'd better either have a better definition with more understanding of the topic than myself, or I suggest you accept that I know what I'm talking about, and choose to improve your own understanding by virtue of the information I'm providing.



I'd say you have an excellent case for "RBSD". It's a term of recent coinage that is normally used by a small group of people within a limited context. The definition you offer is a pretty good summation of how it is used by the person who popularized it and the people who profess to teach it. (Even though, as I pointed out earlier, some of those people undermine the message with some of their marketing material.)

I don't think you have nearly that level of support for your definition of "TMA." Frankly, there is no coherent or consistent usage of that term, either among the martial arts community as a whole or among those claiming to practice "TMA." Your suggestion is an admirable attempt at providing an intellectually coherent definition, but it's not an accurate summation of all the ways the term "traditional martial arts" is used by martial artists. (In fact there _is_ no good way to summarize all those uses into a single coherent definition.) Therefore, you really have no real support if you want to say that your definition of "TMA" is _the_ accurate definition.




drop bear said:


> So I could and pre and post fight and suddenly my mma is rbsd.


 If you developed a system which primarily addressed pre and post fight considerations and happened to use your MMA  as the basis for the fighting portion, then your system as a whole would be RBSD, and your MMA would be a small part of it.



drop bear said:


> Because there are sports systems and traditional systems that do just that.



Could you give examples?



drop bear said:


> look fighters are matched up by ability. Mostly. So it is generally accepted that they are at about the same technical level.
> 
> And that is hardly an accurate comparison. If you were to compare people it is generally accepted you compare the same people. So technique against strength wit no technique isn't really reasonable.



Well, in a real world fight, people are not matched up by ability, or size, or anything else except the circumstances of the fight, so comparing combatants who are mismatched in various ways is totally reasonable.

Heck, even in competition, you can have matches of greater technique vs greater strength. Look at most of Royce Gracie's fights.


----------



## Buka (Jan 11, 2015)

That old boy, Confucius, said _"Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated."_

In the nineteen thirties, the Merriam-Webster dictionary adopted the term "_Rube Goldberg_" as an adjective defined as accomplishing something simple through complicated means.

To me, a lot of what's in Martial Arts is overly complicated. Because, we, as Martial artists, seem to over complicate things the longer we study. 

Of course, we can always debate that.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Why would you assume that?



because i read peoples posts.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Could you give examples?



hammers gym in Victoria did self defence. That was primarily kickboxing but did sd with pre fight.

zen do kai used to do it.

sfca did it but they claimed to be rbsd so doesn't count.

most times whenever i have done self defence at least pre fight is covered. Sometimes post fight is done


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, no. If your argument was just "these are the definitions", then it would be simply assertion with nothing to back it up. What you are actually saying is "the definitions of these terms are x, because that is what the people who developed and commonly use the terms mean by them." _That_ is how definitions work. There is no god of the dictionary handing out true meanings of words from on high.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Seems a bit convenient to be up against a strong guy who doesn't know anything.

sounds more like a bit of an ego boost. In that he might be strong but i am trained sort of thing.

but yes there are mismatches in competition.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> because i read peoples posts.




ROFLMAO. so you can tell what jobs people do/have done by reading their posts? Really? So, by reading my posts can you tell what work I've been in since 1971?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> ROFLMAO. so you can tell what jobs people do/have done by reading their posts? Really? So, by reading my posts can you tell what work I've been in since 1971?



professional pole dancer"


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> professional pole dancer"



That is below the belt man and not nice. You can't tell anything from a forum. That is just a rediculas statement in the previous post as well!


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2015)

Transk, thank you but please don't worry about it, says far more about him than me.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> That is below the belt man and not nice. You can't tell anything from a forum. That is just a ridiculous statement in the previous post as well!



look you can believe everyone is an anti terrorism expert if you want. Doesn't phase me.

My advice still stands. This is not a subject i would play around with unless i knew the person was credible.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 11, 2015)

Actually Drop Bear there are a number of people on this board that should have experienced some serious anti-terrorism training based on their profession.  Even I experienced some way back in the day through my work. (pre 911)


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Transk, thank you but please don't worry about it, says far more about him than me.



so was i close?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Actually Drop Bear there are a number of people on this board that should have experienced some serious anti-terrorism training based on their profession.  Even I experienced some way back in the day through my work. (pre 911)



So did I but i am not an anti terrorism expert because i did a course.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 11, 2015)

*Very good point!*  Yet, you have had training which does make you trained and more knowledgeable in this area than your average person.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Very good point!*  Yet, you have had training which does make you trained and more knowledgeable in this area than your average person.



trained enough to know that you should go to an expert and not put too much faith in what i would have to say on the matter.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Yes. I very much doubt anybody here is an anti terrorism expert.



Considering the membership here, I'm 100% certain there are at least 2 who are.  Yes, I know which 2. No, I won't say who. Most likely several more given where some of our traffic has historically originated from. There's also the large military, ex-military and law enforcement involvement here.  

As to the rude, trolling, insulting and otherwise offensive comments being made, knock it off.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> look you can believe everyone is an anti terrorism expert if you want. Doesn't phase me.
> 
> My advice still stands. This is not a subject i would play around with unless i knew the person was credible.



You know what drop bear, once again you have missed the point. You are very rude with what you said about Tez. That had nothing to do with Anti-Terrorism. However, as Bob Hubbard has spoken, I will leave it at that. Have a good day Sir.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> because i read peoples posts.


How do you know if the anti terrorism experts haven't  just kept quiet about certain things and not revealed their expertise in the matter?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> How do you know if the anti terrorism experts haven't  just kept quiet about certain things and not revealed their expertise in the matter?



It would amount to the same thing though and my advice would remain the same. Which is go seek that training from a credible expert.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jan 11, 2015)

back to RBSD and off anti terrorism please. Anti terrorism is far from what would be taught in a RBSD course.

my view on RBSD:
are there any witnesses?
kick the crap out of him 
Run
that cover pre, actual and post incounters


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> because i read peoples posts.



I think is completely obvious that you do actually read peoples posts at all. You see what you want and invent from there.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

Ok.
so what percentage of rbsd needs to be,I don't know self defence concept?,
(don't display wealth, don't be a drunk idiot. That sort of thing)

Before it is considered rbsd?


----------



## K-man (Jan 11, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Look, I have no doubt over your confidence in your technique… I've got some myself… and *I'm familiar with the Krav response to a front choke* (in many lines, it's the first method taught)… however, such techniques, practiced in the adrenaline free environment of a training hall, can fail to take into account what might be called the "human element"… natural, hard-wired, instinctive responses and so on. There are a range of survival instincts that can trump even a trained response in many cases, especially if the training hasn't taken them into account in the first place, and a sudden, violent threat to the airways is one of them.


Interesting that you know the Krav response to a front choke. I have only been taught one in Krav and I would never teach it as it has no way of working for a smaller weaker person. I have seen two or three others in various Krav DVDs which are reasonable but the one I teach as first choice comes from Kevin O'Hagan and I'm not sure where he got it from. For those who don't recognise the name, Kevin is a little guy with vast experience across many fields including MMA. This release is based on instinct, requires no real strength and works even if you are backed up against a wall. It also sets you up for your counter attack.

The other releases work well depending on the situation but have limitations if the choke is from the side.




Chris Parker said:


> Sure, a "trained person" can recover in a quicker time, allowing for a response, but that doesn't stop the action in the first place having it's intended effect ("freezing", at least momentarily). As I mentioned, we not only use this as part of our methods, but I've personally employed it "live in the field", so to speak, and can attest to it's effect. So that's where I'm coming from.


No one is arguing that you won't get a momentary freeze. It is part of the adrenalin response.  The arguement is whether or not you will be paralysed, and I'm not relying on a clinical definition of paralysis. Basically, if I am paralysed, I can't move. That does not happen with a choke hold which ever way it is spun.



Chris Parker said:


> No, it does need a context… there's no indication of what the quote was attributing the purpose and process of categorising to. That alone can change the intent and reading of the quote. I mean, I get what you were getting at, but I don't think it's really either correct across the board, or in this case. Disagreeing based on a lack of knowledge isn't really a concern.


I provided the sentence to stand alone in the context of this thread in reply to your post.

"Putting things into categories can be useful, but we have to remember that categories are usually artificial."

You are setting up categories with boundaries. Some of us might disagree with the placement of those boundaries. That is not saying you are wrong, just that there can be differences of opinion.



Chris Parker said:


> Yeah… which is still a "set response". Again, the idea of it being something that can be "reasonably expected to be used" neither precludes, nor is essential for a "set response".


You are arguing over nothing here. I tried to set up a mental picture for you. Obviously I failed dismally.



Chris Parker said:


> What I was identifying as the flaw in the drill was the way you described continuing in a way that the students couldn't make work. That was a flaw in the drilling method… I wasn't saying anything about the responses themselves being flawed… just following the way you described things.


As I said, you are on a different page. My fault.




Chris Parker said:


> Hmm… there's no "intent" there… simply an attempt to accurately define various methodologies.


I thought you intended to put forward an accurate definition. Intend/attempt ... academic really.



Chris Parker said:


> What I mean when I use such terms as DefTacs, RBSD etc is the accurate definition of those terms. It really doesn't matter if such a definition isn't "universally accepted"… evolution isn't "universally accepted", that doesn't really have bearing on what's accurate or correct. The attempt to placate by allowing a definition to be stretched to accommodate whatever anyone wants to define something as is firstly inaccurate, secondly redundant, and thirdly a damn insult to anyone interested in actually knowing what the thing is in the first place.


Hmm. Cover all ... it depends. How accurate is the definition in the first place?  Either we accept your definition without question and close the thread, or we challenge it. To say, "Here is my definition. If you disagree you are wrong (inaccurate), no longer required (redundant) and rude (damn insult)", is to my mind all of the above.



Chris Parker said:


> In other words, I really couldn't care less if people agree or not. The definitions I presented are the accurate definitions. If you disagree, you'd better either have a better definition with more understanding of the topic than myself, or I suggest you accept that I know what I'm talking about, and choose to improve your own understanding by virtue of the information I'm providing.


No one is necessarily disagreeing, nor are they suggesting that you don't know what you are talking about. I'm sure that most of us are grateful for your knowledge and indeed do improve our understanding in the areas of your expertise. But that doesn't mean we can't disagree in part with your definitions. We'll look at those shortly.




Chris Parker said:


> And, it might be noted, any time such methods are brought up, anyone else here (LEO for DefTacs, for example) who has experience or understanding in the area have never had issues with my definitions.


Of course they will accept your definitions. Within the context of what you are teaching or what you are writing, that's fine. It doesn't mean that in a different context your definitions are still appropriate.




Chris Parker said:


> No, it's not. This thread asks "What is RBSD?" I've given the definition, expanded on it, corrected misunderstandings, agreed with RBSD instructors definitions, and more. It is specifically about "correct or incorrect"… that's how definitions work.


It still doesn't make them anything more than what you believe to be the best definition within your understanding.

So let's revisit your definitions, which I had just accepted on face value.



Chris Parker said:


> I think it might be time to get some clear definitions out there:
> 
> TMA (Traditional Martial Art): A systematised and codified approach to a particular culturally based expression of violent encounters, focused on expressing lessons through combative techniques and other methods. Not necessarily designed to deal with modern (or even "realistic") violence.


Now for starters the last sentence says it all. "Not necessarily designed to deal with modern violence." The words are a nonsense. A TMA was not designed to deal with modern violence. It was designed to be used against contemporary violence. Why would they design something to use against future violence?

But I got ahead of myself. We are talking of TMA as if people understand what TMA is to begin with. You could argue using this definition that Shotokan karate is a TMA. Within context I could accept that it is traditional if that means having a sensible discussion. But if you take the definition by which the Okinawan Prefecture Karate Rengokai classify traditional styles then it is clearly at odds with that position.



Chris Parker said:


> Combatives: A militarily based close-quarters method focusing on direct, gross-motor, reliable methods against common, gross-motor attacks, including the use of small weapons, and against military style weapons. Sometimes called CQC (Close Quarters Combatives). Commonly aggressive.


Hmm! Why "commonly aggressive". Unless you are including de-escalation, it is pretty much full on aggressive. Then you specify that it is for use against common gross motor attacks. What about precise attacks by trained people? I would have thought they might be included here.



Chris Parker said:


> DefTacs (Defensive Tactics): A common training method employed by Law Enforcement and similar, this is a simplified gross-motor approach to give application of a tactic, or group of tactics, in a versatile, easily adapted manner. Commonly taught in a "dove-tailed" approach, and dealing with modern forms of violence. Might be aggressive, defensive, passive, controlling, or anything else that the tactic and application demands.


Pretty much open to interpretation here also. "*Might be* ... *or anything else*" ... is hardly black and white.* "Commonly taught" *implies not always.



Chris Parker said:


> RBSD (Reality Based Self Defence): A training methodology focused on modern understanding of the broader concept of "self defence", with an emphasis on the pre- and post-fight realities. While it may contain physical combat/engagement methods, these are commonly minimalist. Primary concepts include HAOV (Habitual Acts of Violence), recognition of pre-fight indicators, effects of adrenaline, de-escalation (passive and aggressive), being a "hard target", body language, legal realities (before, during, and after), common assault patterns, social (ritual) violence, psychological aspects (after-effects, PTSD, "limiting beliefs", social programming and conditioning, and more), and so on.


Of course this is where we are really drilling down. "Modern understanding" is according to who? Emphasis on pre- and post-fight realities? Is that really the case, especially in contemporary context? Certainly these are important components but I might have thought a big part was the 'save your butt when the brown stuff hits the fan' might be my emphasis. The other bits I can get in various other places that have nothing to do with RBSD. Then you include habitual acts of violence, McCarthy perhaps? That might need defining as well. Then of course you open it up to discussion by adding *"and so on" *implying that we can vary the concepts you are listing.



Chris Parker said:


> As you can see, TMA, Combatives, Def Tacs (and modern martial arts,sports martial arts, and so on) are largely concerned with "the fight", orthe engagement. That's their focus. RBSD is differentiated by not focusing on that, although it is dealt with. That's the biggest difference.


And of course here you are saying what it's not, again in loosely defined terms.

Chris, I was happy just to accept your definitions and move on until you stated that we all had to accept without question what you had to say as the only course.

This is the bit that makes be wince;
_"The attempt to placate by allowing a definition to be stretched to accommodate whatever anyone wants to define something as is firstly inaccurate, secondly redundant, and thirdly a damn insult to anyone interested in actually knowing what the thing is in the first place."
_
People will define things in the manner they wish to discuss something. You can't win an argument by changing their definition to yours, even if you are right.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

K-man said:


> No one is arguing that you won't get a momentary freeze. It is part of the adrenalin response. The arguement is whether or not you will be paralysed, and I'm not relying on a clinical definition of paralysis. Basically, if I am paralysed, I can't move. That does not happen with a choke hold which ever way it is spun.



It is spun like this. The choke is incredibly invasive and you think you are going to die.

People do freeze up under stress.


----------



## K-man (Jan 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> It is spun like this. The choke is incredibly invasive and you think you are going to die.
> 
> People do freeze up under stress.


Well I, for one will not be relying on it in a tight situation. You have posted two videos on it. The first was more a strike and follow through than a choke and the second was the situation when a guy in a position of authority was restraining a much smaller guy, and FWIW, not choking him. 

As to thinking you are about to die, sure if it's properly on. If the trachea is not being crushed that won't happen. If it is, it is likely you will die. Therefore it is a stupid thing to do, the actual choke part, unless you intend to kill the person.  It's a bit like pointing a gun at someone's head. If you are not going to pull the trigger it is a bluff. By the time you have actually done the choke or pulled the trigger chances are you have killed him. 

So a grab to the throat, threatening? Sure. Momentary freeze? Sure. Paralysis, no way with a trained person. And that's without taking into account the time taken to get that sort of grip. The defence is literally a fraction of a second. It's black and white. The only chance of it succeeding is if you are quick enough and good enough to crush the trachea. If that is your intent then it is black and white in terms of self defence. Unless your life was under threat it could not be construed as justifiable force.


----------



## K-man (Jan 11, 2015)

I was talking about Kevin O'Hagen. He has done a lot of stuff with Geoff Thompson and I call Geoff's material RBSD. Kevin calls his 'Urban Combatives'. I think that is probably a fair call and it's probably along the lines of what many of us think of when the term RBSD is used. As I said earlier, I believe there is a big overlap when we are talking about Combatives, RBSD, Def Tacs and even TMAs.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 11, 2015)

K-man said:


> Well I, for one will not be relying on it in a tight situation. You have posted two videos on it. The first was more a strike and follow through than a choke and the second was the situation when a guy in a position of authority was restraining a much smaller guy, and FWIW, not choking him.
> 
> As to thinking you are about to die, sure if it's properly on. If the trachea is not being crushed that won't happen. If it is, it is likely you will die. Therefore it is a stupid thing to do, the actual choke part, unless you intend to kill the person.  It's a bit like pointing a gun at someone's head. If you are not going to pull the trigger it is a bluff. By the time you have actually done the choke or pulled the trigger chances are you have killed him.
> 
> So a grab to the throat, threatening? Sure. Momentary freeze? Sure. Paralysis, no way with a trained person. And that's without taking into account the time taken to get that sort of grip. The defence is literally a fraction of a second. It's black and white. The only chance of it succeeding is if you are quick enough and good enough to crush the trachea. If that is your intent then it is black and white in terms of self defence. Unless your life was under threat it could not be construed as justifiable force.



You have a bunch of misconceptions about that style of choke.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 12, 2015)

K-man said:


> So a grab to the throat, threatening? Sure. Momentary freeze? Sure. Paralysis, no way with a trained person. And that's without taking into account the time taken to get that sort of grip..


If there is one thing that annoys me about some RBSD people its that they sometimes seem to want people to believe that even a traditional martial artist with decades of training and experience will just fall completely to pieces and forget every thing the know and be completely useless as soon as someone in the street attacked them for real. Which is a load of rubbish.


----------



## K-man (Jan 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> You have a bunch of misconceptions about that style of choke.


Sure. I know nothing. What a waste of 30+ years.  What a shame. I should have started MMA back then. 

In light of your attitude, I won't be bothered replying to any more of your posts as obviously I have nothing to add to your understanding. Perhaps you are doing the same with my posts as with *ballen*'s. Well I don't need the angst.


----------



## K-man (Jan 12, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> If there is one thing that annoys me about some RBSD people its that they sometimes seem to want people to believe that even a traditional martial artist with decades of training and experience will just fall completely to pieces and forget every thing the know and be completely useless as soon as someone in the street attacked them for real. Which is a load of rubbish.


What annoys me even more is when someone with no training outside of  MMA and some kiddie karate says the same. I haven't seen anyone with a RBSD background having a go at TMA. All the derogatory comments have come from people with no experience in either.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 12, 2015)

K-man said:


> I haven't seen anyone with a RBSD background having a go at TMA.


Well there's this guy:

Why Most Martial Arts Don t Work FunctionalSelfDefense.org


----------



## drop bear (Jan 12, 2015)

K-man said:


> Sure. I know nothing. What a waste of 30+ years.  What a shame. I should have started MMA back then.
> 
> In light of your attitude, I won't be bothered replying to any more of your posts as obviously I have nothing to add to your understanding. Perhaps you are doing the same with my posts as with *ballen*'s. Well I don't need the angst.



there should have been. MMA back then. Especially for the advancement of rbsd. I mean I looked for a simple system that combined punching kicking grappling and ground work. But it just wasn't packaged. Add a dog brothers style weapons system and you would pretty much be golden.

Even the gloves where you can test full contact grappling and striking and the matted cage where you can bang people off walls is just such a step forwards.

Take that. Add pre fight, post fight ,multiples anything. And suddenly your rbsd methods have the best of both worlds.

 But that is a different topic.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 12, 2015)

K-man said:


> What annoys me even more is when someone with no training outside of  MMA and some kiddie karate says the same. I haven't seen anyone with a RBSD background having a go at TMA. All the derogatory comments have come from people with no experience in either.



It is the no rules argument generally. You know a black belt who has trained to fight without shoes and stuff gets on the streets and gets manhandled by a junky because he couldn't convert his traditional methods.

it was a big selling point for rbsd back in the day. I should be able to find some links.


----------



## K-man (Jan 12, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Well there's this guy:
> 
> Why Most Martial Arts Don t Work FunctionalSelfDefense.org


*



			Who Is David Erath?
		
Click to expand...

*


> David was born and raised in New Orleans. He ran a self defense school there full time for 10 years, until 2007. Due at least partly to the environment he was raised in, he's been obsessed with self defense and martial arts from an early age. As a child he made homemade pepper spray (a mixture of gasoline and Raid...roach spray...in a bottle attached to his bike) to defend against the ever present bike robbers in his neighborhood. As an adult he lived across the street from drug dealers, and witnessed numerous shootings from distances closer than he would have liked. David has black belts in a couple of styles, but generally dislikes the idea of rank and formality. He's studied _lots_ of martial arts, but because he felt none of them sufficiently and comprehensively dealt with self defense, he created FSD.


Yeah but is he RBSD? Sounds like a bit of a try hard to me. Most people that go into a more SD field still list their prior MAs as credentials. This guy looks as if he didn't do much anywhere. I'm always wary of people who rely on bagging others to promote themselves.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 12, 2015)

Who is that jim Wagner guy?
is he really representative of rbsd? Pointing out the flaws in tma,s

Jim Wagner Reality-Based Personal Protection

They pretty much all do it. Part of the sales pitch.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 12, 2015)

K-man said:


> Yeah but is he RBSD? Sounds like a bit of a try hard to me. Most people that go into a more SD field still list their prior MAs as credentials. This guy looks as if he didn't do much anywhere. I'm always wary of people who rely on bagging others to promote themselves.


That was my assessment of him as well.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> It is the no rules argument generally. You know a black belt who has trained to fight without shoes and stuff gets on the streets and gets manhandled by a junky because he couldn't convert his traditional methods.
> 
> it was a big selling point for rbsd back in the day. I should be able to find some links.


Why many TMAs train in bare feet could be another entire thread. Don't most MMA and BJJ guys train without shoes? Wouldn't they have the same trouble with the same junky? You see the flaw in your logic do you?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 12, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Why many TMAs train in bare feet could be another entire thread. Don't most MMA and BJJ guys train without shoes? Wouldn't they have the same trouble with the same junky? You see the flaw in your logic do you?



yes the logic is flawed.

 it relies on this idea that we are robots that cannot adapt a concept to a unique environment.  If i kick a tennis ball I cant kick a soccer ball. To a certain very fine tolerance this is sort of true but then breaks down. Almost at the same level.

(by the way kicking a tennis ball was a drill we used when i played soccer. It was supposed to develop fine motor skills)


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 12, 2015)

K-man said:


> For those who don't recognise the name, Kevin is a little guy with vast experience across many fields including MMA.



Kevin O'Hagan is a brilliant instructor, another one who if you ever get a chance to train with him grab it. He really does know what he's talking about.
As for all that stuff about TMA people not knowing anything about defending etc etc it's just another load of codswallop to sell their own classes.


----------



## MJS (Jan 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Jim wagners take on the thing.
> 
> "Reality-based systems are those systems that teach the fundamental self-defense techniques that are found in both the traditional-based and sport-based systems, but go a step further by training specifically for modern conflict situations, and eliminating outdated techniques and training methods. Although there are many systems today calling themselves “reality-based,” because they see themselves as training more realistically and have abandoned nonessential customs and traditions, few of them are actually “complete reality-based” systems. In other words, they lack Pre-Conflict and Post-Conflict training in their curriculums and their Conflict training may be lacking simply because they have no real-world experience with criminals, abnormals, or terrorism."



Well, thanks for posting this. This was the point I was trying to get across, although my choice of words, could have been better.   As for the pre/post conflict training...yup, this is something I've said myself, many times.


----------



## MJS (Jan 12, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> If there is one thing that annoys me about some RBSD people its that they sometimes seem to want people to believe that even a traditional martial artist with decades of training and experience will just fall completely to pieces and forget every thing the know and be completely useless as soon as someone in the street attacked them for real. Which is a load of rubbish.



Couldn't agree more!  



K-man said:


> What annoys me even more is when someone with no training outside of  MMA and some kiddie karate says the same. I haven't seen anyone with a RBSD background having a go at TMA. All the derogatory comments have come from people with no experience in either.



Very true.  I stand by what I've said before: it's not necessarily what you train in, but how you train it.


----------



## MJS (Jan 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> yes the logic is flawed.
> 
> it relies on this idea that we are robots that cannot adapt a concept to a unique environment.  If i kick a tennis ball I cant kick a soccer ball. To a certain very fine tolerance this is sort of true but then breaks down. Almost at the same level.
> 
> (by the way kicking a tennis ball was a drill we used when i played soccer. It was supposed to develop fine motor skills)



Actually, I'm not following your logic on this.  TMA's can't fight outside the dojo, supposedly because they train without shoes, yet every BJJ school that I've seen, also trains barefoot.  As I've said countless times....it all comes down to HOW one trains.  Sure, I could train in a gi, barefoot, 4 times a week, in a BJJ gym, yet I can also train no gi, in my backyard on the grass.  The TMA guy could train in a realistic fashion, just like the BJJ guy.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> hammers gym in Victoria did self defence. That was primarily kickboxing but did sd with pre fight.
> 
> zen do kai used to do it.



What sort of training did they do for the pre-fight? What did you learn from it? I've seen schools like that occasionally do a little play acting skit before practicing physical techniques, but it wasn't actually training anything meaningful.



drop bear said:


> so what percentage of rbsd needs to be,I don't know self defence concept?,
> (don't display wealth, don't be a drunk idiot. That sort of thing)
> 
> Before it is considered rbsd?



Well, if it's just reading off of checklist of pointers (don't display wealth, don't be a drunk idiot, don't date violent assholes, etc), then it's not really training, is it?

Think of it like sparring, which we are both a fan of. If you never get your butt kicked, then you probably aren't learning too much from your sparring, right? To my mind, the pre and post fight scenarios should have just as much pressure and opportunity to screw up under pressure as you encounter in sparring.

As far as percentages, I'm not sure what different teachers go for. If I were looking into RBSD training, I'd want something that was at least 50% focused on pre and post fight. The bit I've had before was 99% pre and post fight.



K-man said:


> Sure. Momentary freeze? Sure. Paralysis, no way with a trained person.



I think drop bear was talking about using the throat grab in a context of settling down a belligerent drunk bar patron. I'm guessing he didn't have too many instances where he was using it on a highly trained martial artist.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 12, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Why many TMAs train in bare feet could be another entire thread. Don't most MMA and BJJ guys train without shoes? Wouldn't they have the same trouble with the same junky? You see the flaw in your logic do you?





MJS said:


> Actually, I'm not following your logic on this. TMA's can't fight outside the dojo, supposedly because they train without shoes, yet every BJJ school that I've seen, also trains barefoot. As I've said countless times....it all comes down to HOW one trains. Sure, I could train in a gi, barefoot, 4 times a week, in a BJJ gym, yet I can also train no gi, in my backyard on the grass. The TMA guy could train in a realistic fashion, just like the BJJ guy.



You guys are misunderstanding drop bear's point entirely. He is not at all claiming that TMA practitioners are unable to defend themselves because they practice indoors without shoes and so on. He is saying that some RBSD practitioners have made that claim and that he thinks the claim is complete rubbish.

(Drop bear - if you could spend a little time adding actual punctuation to your posts it might reduce this sort of confusion. This isn't the first time people have thought you were making a point that you were actually arguing against.)


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> What I mean when I use such terms as DefTacs, RBSD etc is the accurate definition of those terms. It really doesn't matter if such a definition isn't "universally accepted"… evolution isn't "universally accepted", that doesn't really have bearing on what's accurate or correct. The attempt to placate by allowing a definition to be stretched to accommodate whatever anyone wants to define something as is firstly inaccurate, secondly redundant, and thirdly a damn insult to anyone interested in actually knowing what the thing is in the first place.
> 
> In other words, I really couldn't care less if people agree or not. The definitions I presented are the accurate definitions. If you disagree, you'd better either have a better definition with more understanding of the topic than myself, or I suggest you accept that I know what I'm talking about, and choose to improve your own understanding by virtue of the information I'm providing.


I think this causes a lot of unnecessary confusion.  From what you wrote, your definitions seem reasonable, and surely it helps other people understand what you mean when you use the terms. 

But you seem to believe that you are sharing the only true and correct definition.  Labels such as these are so abstract that there is plenty of room for interpretation.  You are not sharing THE correct definition; rather, you are sharing ONE correct definition.  If the definition of RBSD were as concrete as you would have us believe, this thread would be two posts long.  As would the several threads attempting to define TMA.


----------



## MJS (Jan 12, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> You guys are misunderstanding drop bear's point entirely. He is not at all claiming that TMA practitioners are unable to defend themselves because they practice indoors without shoes and so on. He is saying that some RBSD practitioners have made that claim and that he thinks the claim is complete rubbish.
> 
> (Drop bear - if you could spend a little time adding actual punctuation to your posts it might reduce this sort of confusion. This isn't the first time people have thought you were making a point that you were actually arguing against.)




Ahh...well, in that case, I owe you a thanks for the clarification and an apology to DB.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 12, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> What sort of training did they do for the pre-fight? What did you learn from it? I've seen schools like that occasionally do a little play acting skit before practicing physical techniques, but it wasn't actually training anything meaningful.



It was always just a little skit pretty much. Even the hoch hocheim stuff. Even the security training.

I mentioned this before that if you compare it to sales training it is really primitive stuff.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 12, 2015)

MJS said:


> Ahh...well, in that case, I owe you a thanks for the clarification and an apology to DB.


Seconded.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 12, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, if it's just reading off of checklist of pointers (don't display wealth, don't be a drunk idiot, don't date violent assholes, etc), then it's not really training, is it?
> 
> Think of it like sparring, which we are both a fan of. If you never get your butt kicked, then you probably aren't learning too much from your sparring, right? To my mind, the pre and post fight scenarios should have just as much pressure and opportunity to screw up under pressure as you encounter in sparring.
> 
> As far as percentages, I'm not sure what different teachers go for. If I were looking into RBSD training, I'd want something that was at least 50% focused on pre and post fight. The bit I've had before was 99% pre and post fight.



well like any training there will be both. I generally go on places like lonely planet to get the lecture style tips for the sort of methods to keep you out of trouble.

As far as resisting it on. Ambushing you could do. (we used to have a game on patrols where we would jump out at each other. It got really competitive.)

But i cant see how de escalation could be resisted.

As far as pre and post. We train guys on the job. So it handles itself. If you are new you will be throwing people out.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 12, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Seconded.



Don't stress guys. It is an open conversation It takes what it takes to exchange the ideas.

If we get there in the end that is what matters.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 12, 2015)

Oh and i am on a phone and have stubby fingers.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> As far as resisting it on. Ambushing you could do. (we used to have a game on patrols where we would jump out at each other. It got really competitive.)
> 
> But i cant see how de escalation could be resisted.



De-escalation training is tricky. You would need trainers with lots of real world experience in knowing what tends to work and what doesn't and training partners who are good enough actors to respond realistically within the requirements of the role they are playing. It's not something the average martial arts instructor is qualified to throw together.

There are plenty of other aspects of pre-fight that can be explored. One important aspect is learning when to use force and when not to. You can set up scenarios where using force will be a mistake, others where _not_ using force will be a mistake, and others where using force _at the wrong moment_ will be a mistake. Have the scenarios set up by someone who has enough real world experience to make them realistic and set up enough pressure in the role playing that the person going through the scenario doesn't have a chance to carefully think through the options at his leisure. Bonus points if you can set up the scenario to subtly nudge the subject into doing the wrong thing the first time through - it'll help him understand how easy it is to screw up under pressure.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> It was always just a little skit pretty much. Even the hoch hocheim stuff. Even the security training.
> 
> I mentioned this before that if you compare it to sales training it is really primitive stuff.


One thing you might keep in mind, Drop Bear, is that your training may well have been pretty primitive, but there is excellent training out there.  Training CAN be very effective.

This isn't to say that I think training can replace experience, as others here believe.  You and I agree on that completely.  But good scenario based training exists.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 12, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> De-escalation training is tricky. You would need trainers with lots of real world experience in knowing what tends to work and what doesn't and training partners who are good enough actors to respond realistically within the requirements of the role they are playing. It's not something the average martial arts instructor is qualified to throw together.
> 
> There are plenty of other aspects of pre-fight that can be explored. One important aspect is learning when to use force and when not to. You can set up scenarios where using force will be a mistake, others where _not_ using force will be a mistake, and others where using force _at the wrong moment_ will be a mistake. Have the scenarios set up by someone who has enough real world experience to make them realistic and set up enough pressure in the role playing that the person going through the scenario doesn't have a chance to carefully think through the options at his leisure. Bonus points if you can set up the scenario to subtly nudge the subject into doing the wrong thing the first time through - it'll help him understand how easy it is to screw up under pressure.



lol. I still haven't figured that out in real life.

that would be an interesting set up to do. As an example to you act if someone decides to give you a false charge?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 12, 2015)

Steve said:


> One thing you might keep in mind, Drop Bear, is that your training may well have been pretty primitive, but there is excellent training out there.  Training CAN be very effective.
> 
> This isn't to say that I think training can replace experience, as others here believe.  You and I agree on that completely.  But good scenario based training exists.



Look I believe it can be done. As i said about sales. Where they have real systems and backups if you fail. The thought gone into that is really comprehensive.

But that sales training is the yard stick in my opinion.


----------



## K-man (Jan 12, 2015)

Maybe we could go back to the beginning and refocus on the OP. What is Reality Based Self Defence?

Now Chris wrote some interesting and well thought out stuff back earlier. Although I disagree with some of the sentiments of his post, what was written is worth examining and comparing with Jim Wagner's view.



Chris Parker said:


> The point is that RBSD, like anything, isn't just "what people want to call RBSD"… it's a specific thing. Are all RBSD systems then the same, exactly? Of course not… but they all contain the hallmarks that would be expected to be encountered, with broadly similar emphasis' and focus'.
> 
> It either is (and has the hallmarks of such), or it's not. If someone wants to argue about specific aspects (what to include or exclude), they need to make the argument based on the understanding of the term in the first place.



So here Chris is saying that to be RBSD a system has to have the hallmarks of RBSD. It's a pretty broad summation but seems a fair place to start.

Again here is Chris' definition.



Chris Parker said:


> RBSD (Reality Based Self Defence): A training methodology focused on modern understanding of the broader concept of "self defence", with an emphasis on the pre- and post-fight realities. While it may contain physical combat/engagement methods, these are commonly minimalist. Primary concepts include HAOV (Habitual Acts of Violence), recognition of pre-fight indicators, effects of adrenaline, de-escalation (passive and aggressive), being a "hard target", body language, legal realities (before, during, and after), common assault patterns, social (ritual) violence, psychological aspects (after-effects, PTSD, "limiting beliefs", social programming and conditioning, and more), and so on.



Now if Jim Wagner was the first guy to use the phrase, perhaps we could go back to him to see what he meant by it.


> The definition of the term Reality-Based as defined by Jim Wagner is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, so how do these descriptions stack up and what are the differences?

To me, the most obvious difference is the simplicity of Jim's definition.

It is not saying RBSD is the same everywhere. There may not be a definition where 'one size fits all'. Jim's definition talks of the local environment. The training might be different in America to Australia or Israel or Colombia. The expectation of encountering violence is different in those environments, the type of violence is different in those environments, the chance that the violence will involve weapons is different and the cultural characteristics are going to be different. Then, of course, the laws regarding what actions you take are different.

Now I would say that what I teach complies with Jim's description for guys living in my community. In the main, I'm not teaching guys to go into the security industry, I'm not teaching people to work in psyche wards and I am not teaching guys who are likely to be walking the back streets of San Pedro Sula, allegedly the world's most dangerous city.

What are the 'hallmarks' of RBSD according to Jim? Well, the system had to include training based on modern conflict situations. It needs to be suited to the area in which you live and it must comply with the local laws.

What does the training include, a totally different question really? Well here we put in all the bits we have been discussing. Avoidance, de-escalation, pre-fight, post-fight, plus of course any action necessary to physically save your backside.

I guess what I am saying is, I don't need an incredibly complicated, everything included definition. All I need is a definition of what RBSD means to the group I am discussing things with. 

 Arguing that what this person or that person is teaching is not RBSD is really not overly productive. There are quite simple criteria. Is the person preparing people to cope with violence in the community in which they live or communities they are likely to visit? If so, I believe that is RBSD.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2015)

K-man said:


> I guess what I am saying is, I don't need an incredibly complicated, everything included definition. *All I need is a definition of what RBSD means to the group I am discussing things with.*
> 
> Arguing that what this person or that person is teaching is not RBSD is really not overly productive. There are quite simple criteria. Is the person preparing people to cope with violence in the community in which they live or communities they are likely to visit? If so, I believe that is RBSD.


This seems to me to be another valid and useful definition of RBSD.  I particularly like the bolded part above.


----------



## tkdwarrior (Jan 12, 2015)

Too complicated explanations tend to get lost.....somewhere out there.....anyway....define it anyway you like but it is as simple as it needs to be.


----------



## Buka (Jan 14, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> De-escalation training is tricky. You would need trainers with lots of real world experience in knowing what tends to work and what doesn't and training partners who are good enough actors to respond realistically within the requirements of the role they are playing. It's not something the average martial arts instructor is qualified to throw together.



You're spot on, Tony, de-escalation IS tricky. And it's different when dealing with adults - than with juveniles - than with folks with mental health issues.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 15, 2015)

Absolutely Buka.  For anyone who has used de-escalation regularly it is tricky and very different from person to person and also different depending on the environment and that societies customs.


----------



## wingchunguy (Jun 24, 2015)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Well reality based self-defense would be any self-defense training that deals with potential dangers in your current environment as well as how to address the before and after of such confrontations. Whether or not you have the trappings of a traditional martial art or not is irrelevant in my opinion.



Irrelevant? How so? If your martial art is incomplete, like boxing, muay thai or grappling, then when you face someone who knows these systems, you won't know how to handle them. I think it's VERY relevant and even CRUCIAL you know the weaknesses of the system you are using so you can try to fill in the gap so you can become a complete fighter, ready for any situation.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 21, 2015)

wingchunguy said:


> Irrelevant? How so? If your martial art is incomplete, like boxing, muay thai or grappling, then when you face someone who knows these systems, you won't know how to handle them. I think it's VERY relevant and even CRUCIAL you know the weaknesses of the system you are using so you can try to fill in the gap so you can become a complete fighter, ready for any situation.



Er… what? I don't think you followed what Himura was saying, as most of this is completely irrelevant itself. There was no mention of "complete" or not, he was describing the focus and ideals of an RBSD system… and pointing out that looking at the trappings (indicative features) of traditional martial arts being present wasn't any real indication at all of an RBSD approach (I'd say that a traditional martial art setting indicates a separate ideology to RBSD myself, for the record, so it's less "irrelevant", and more simply a completely different thing). The idea of knowing different "systems" (completely impractical, for the record) to deal with someone who may happen to know the particular one you've looked at is both not part of the ideals of RBSD methodology, and not relevant or crucial in this sense at all. It's nothing to do with being a "complete fighter", you realise…


----------

