# Where is the "Reality" forum?



## KyleShort (Feb 16, 2004)

After having spent about a month reading through the wonderful forums on Martial Talk, I noticed a gap in the forums.  There seems to be a forum for every major martial art out there, but nothing dedicated to the so called "Reality Training".  Are there plans for a forum dedicated to raw self defense training and these so called methods?  Examples include:

Krav Maga
Haganah / F.I.G.H.T
WWII Combatives
Defendo
Abridged Wing Chun Systems (like jeet fa etc.)
Dynamic Combat
Paul Vunak
Geoff Thompson
Tony Blauer
...

*Introduction:*
Since this is my first post I thought I'd introduce myself.  My name is Kyle and I am a software engineer in Northern California.  I have studied Martial Arts and Self Defense for most of my life.  The majority of my training is in a Kajukenbo / TKD blended system (relatively worthless McKarate), but I have also trained in Bujinkan for 2 years and Wing Chun for 2 years.  I also have extensive personal study on Self Defense and Chin Na.  

I have recently began training in Doce Pares Escrima because it seems to compliment my own personal style very well, and it gives me my first experience in full contact competition.

Thanks!


----------



## Black Bear (Feb 16, 2004)

Meh, just post it in here. SD is generally the focus of "reality-oriented" systems.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 17, 2004)

Welcome Kyle!  artyon: 

Yea...Self Defense Forums have been used for Reality based self-defense (RBSD) related posts. There has been talk about giving RBSD its own forum, but I don't know if thats in the plans yet. You might want to PM over in one of the support forums and see what they say. I think that a RBSD forum might be popular, and might be worth a try.

PAUL


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 17, 2004)

Welcome to Martial Talk Kyle.


Erveryone,

As to Reality Based and also Strategy and Tactics, if people continue to post on these subjects, enough to show, that there is a desire. The Admin Team will review and make the appropriate changes if the Admin Team sees the desire and data (Posts) that support the desire.

Best Regards
*
Rich Parsons
Martial Talk
Assistant Administrator
*


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 17, 2004)

I'm not against a reality based forum, but isnt that a little stereotypical? To say that this is the approved reality based arts is sort of reaching in to someone elses training and saying its not reality based, no? A reality based forum would need to be unspecific to system. 

To say these systmes are reality based: 
Krav Maga
Haganah / F.I.G.H.T
.....

Is to say these systems are not reality based:
TKD
Judo
Kung Fu
Kenpo
.....

Thats just a big jump to assume that, in my books at least. I think there are unrelistic training in many systems, even the royal Krav Maga. I also think there are reality based training going on in many arts including the dreaded TKD. 

So to sum up, I think it would be a cool forum, but not if specified to certain systems.

7sm


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 17, 2004)

I agree that a reality based SD forum shouldn't be art specific. 

 :asian:


----------



## theletch1 (Feb 17, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm not against a reality based forum, but isnt that a little stereotypical? To say that this is the approved reality based arts is sort of reaching in to someone elses training and saying its not reality based, no? A reality based forum would need to be unspecific to system.
> 
> 
> I agree that the RBSD forum shouldn't be art specific but I think that what is being talked about is more of a style of training than a "style" of art.  While traditional arts do teach you to defend yourself, the style of training is different than the stripped down RBSD systems.  There are drills in some of the more traditional arts that could be included as part of reality based training (the alleyway in my aikido training for example) but there is also a lot of the more traditional type of training to go along with it.  Pointing fingers at any art and saying that it isn't meant for reality (read real life) is a sure way to kick of a flame war.  So, so long as we continue to converse in the manner to which the vast majority of us do on this site there shouldn't be a problem.  I'd be interested in it myself.


----------



## KyleShort (Feb 17, 2004)

*7sm*
You are right on with my way of thinking as well.  Reality based self defense can be derived from virtually every martial art.  However, I did not clearly communicate my intentions.

It seems to me as though a new classification of martial arts systems has emerged in the last decade and that classifaction is unfortunately (and erroneously) labled as Reality Based Self Defense.  Looking through these forums I see extensive coverage of striking, grappling, weapons and energy systems.  However, there seems to be little to no coverage of these new wave systems of Krav Maga, Haganah, SPEAR etc.

So in a nutshell.  Yeah I agree that Self Defense should be discussed agnostic to art, but I'd also like to see coverage of these systems as though they were there own arts.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 17, 2004)

Some of those arts are covered in other existing areas (Krav Maga in Western, Wing Chun has its own forum, etc.)

That said, the biggest obstacle to setting up a forum for the 'reality' concept is demand.  Its hard to set up a seperate area for just a couple of people.  I do like the idea, I just have to ask, will it be used?

Best way to show it'll be used is to kick things up in here (as I think its the best area at the moment) and if the demand is there, we'll be more than happy to set up a distinct area, and move the threads around as needed.


----------



## MJS (Feb 17, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm not against a reality based forum, but isnt that a little stereotypical? To say that this is the approved reality based arts is sort of reaching in to someone elses training and saying its not reality based, no? A reality based forum would need to be unspecific to system.
> 
> To say these systmes are reality based:
> Krav Maga
> ...



All the arts mentioned above have their place, but when you see something like TKD, with all the flash, and then something like KM, well....how can you compare the two??

Mike


----------



## MJS (Feb 17, 2004)

Kyle-- Welcome to the forum!!   As for the RBSD catagory---it would probably be a good idea, due to the fact that at times when its brought up in another topic, such as the Kenpo forums, well, lets just say that some of those guys get upset if you talk about anything that is not Kenpo.  Probably the best place to talk about that stuff would be right here in this thread.  Start a topic of discussion, and I'm sure it'll lead to much discussion.

Again, welcome!

Mike


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 18, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> All the arts mentioned above have their place, but when you see something like TKD, with all the flash, and then something like KM, well....how can you compare the two??


I can see where your coming from, I really can, but your looking at the two arts through your knowledge of them. You have to look past that into what they could be, and how some people are training with them. KM can be very useful, but it has its limitations as well. TKD can be very watered down, but it has its fighters. You just have to look past the "norm" and see what each could be, and know that somewhere out there it is.

7sm


----------



## MJS (Feb 18, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I can see where your coming from, I really can, but your looking at the two arts through your knowledge of them. You have to look past that into what they could be, and how some people are training with them. KM can be very useful, but it has its limitations as well. TKD can be very watered down, but it has its fighters. You just have to look past the "norm" and see what each could be, and know that somewhere out there it is.
> 
> 7sm



True and I agree!  I believe that all arts have something to offer.  I realize that just because TKD is something that does not interest me, there are people out there who love it and can make it work for them.

Mike


----------



## Black Bear (Feb 18, 2004)

Hey what is anyone's experience with Haganah?


----------



## MJS (Feb 18, 2004)

Black Bear said:
			
		

> Hey what is anyone's experience with Haganah?



There is an article about it in the recent black belt magazine.  Looks like its an abridged version of KM.  Looks effective, but then again, I'm not an expert in it.

Mike


----------



## 8253 (Feb 27, 2004)

KyleShort said:
			
		

> After having spent about a month reading through the wonderful forums on Martial Talk, I noticed a gap in the forums.  There seems to be a forum for every major martial art out there, but nothing dedicated to the so called "Reality Training".  Are there plans for a forum dedicated to raw self defense training and these so called methods?  Examples include:
> 
> Krav Maga
> Haganah / F.I.G.H.T
> ...



Does it really make a difference what the name of the martial art is.  As long as it works it is a reality based system.  The thing is when you break down martial arts the only difference is the psychology.  After all there are only so many ways to puch, kick, and block etc.   :asian:


----------



## MJS (Feb 27, 2004)

8253 said:
			
		

> Does it really make a difference what the name of the martial art is.  As long as it works it is a reality based system.  The thing is when you break down martial arts the only difference is the psychology.  After all there are only so many ways to puch, kick, and block etc.   :asian:



True to a point.  Sure, anything that works can be said to be reality, but if you really look at more of a traditional art and then compare it to something like Krav Maga, or something that you'd see Peyton Quinn or Marc Macyoung teach, you can see an obvious difference.

Mike


----------



## Black Bear (Feb 27, 2004)

I personally see Quinn and MacYoung as still very traditional in many respects. I admit I'm basing my opinion on just one really old video I saw with them, but it looked like the mechanics of traditional arts for the most part. You know what really cracks me up though is pics of guys in street clothes doing "self defense"which consists of deep bow stances, reverse punches, a kick to the face, maybe an ikkyo armbar or kotegaeshi and then step on the guy's face. I mean, they're chambering their punches at their freaking hip! You used to see this sort of thing in old BB mags and stuff. 

Quinn and MacYoung are alright. They think out what they do and keep it real, not just put street dress on crap.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 27, 2004)

Just throwing out an idea... why dont we start posting some links to threads that relate to RBSD here to show how the issue relates to other arts on this forum? A sort of "crossroads".

Heres some I was in

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12631
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11329
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12084


----------



## MJS (Feb 28, 2004)

Black Bear said:
			
		

> I personally see Quinn and MacYoung as still very traditional in many respects. I admit I'm basing my opinion on just one really old video I saw with them, but it looked like the mechanics of traditional arts for the most part. You know what really cracks me up though is pics of guys in street clothes doing "self defense"which consists of deep bow stances, reverse punches, a kick to the face, maybe an ikkyo armbar or kotegaeshi and then step on the guy's face. I mean, they're chambering their punches at their freaking hip! You used to see this sort of thing in old BB mags and stuff.
> 
> Quinn and MacYoung are alright. They think out what they do and keep it real, not just put street dress on crap.



Here is where I was going with this.  Take Quinn for example.  How many Inst. can you honestly say, put their students through the sort of adrenaline stress training that Quinn does?  I havent seen that many.  Now, if you look at someone like Matt Thorton, who is a big one on aliveness, and resistance...well, that to me is a good example.  Matt is keeping it real!!

IMO, the thing that separates the RBSD Inst. from the rest, is that they seem to use the JKD principle- Take what is useful and discard the rest.  The RBSD guys have taken out the fancy stances, the fancy high kicks, the bowing, meditation, kata, and kept the stuff that is going to work on the street.  

Again, I'm not an expert on these guys.  Just going on what I've read about them and heard from others.  

Mike


----------



## Black Bear (Feb 28, 2004)

I like MacYoung's books. I read one of Quinn's too, which was pretty good. But I saw a vid with the three of them, and it had a lot more traditional stuff in it than I'd expected. Fairly practical, but still having the flavour of the ancestral art. Like wearing hakamas. (I kid you not.) 

Didn't look anything like folks like Blauer, Franco, Thompson, Wagner, etc. who achieved proficiency in a couple TMA's, discard most of it, and build something from the ground up with its own structure. 

Matt Thornton is one of my favourite people alive right now.


----------



## MJS (Feb 28, 2004)

Black Bear said:
			
		

> I like MacYoung's books. I read one of Quinn's too, which was pretty good. But I saw a vid with the three of them, and it had a lot more traditional stuff in it than I'd expected. Fairly practical, but still having the flavour of the ancestral art. Like wearing hakamas. (I kid you not.)



Hakamas?? Really??  I've read a few of Macyoungs books and Francos.  I realize that they have trained in traditional arts prior to their change, but I never saw anything in the books that looked that traditional to me.




> Matt Thornton is one of my favourite people alive right now.



Matt is AWESOME!!!  The guy I train my BJJ with is a huge Thorton fan!!  He's gone to a few of his seminars and speaks very highly of him.  I have some of his tapes and I really like the way he puts his stuff together.  

Mike


----------



## 8253 (Mar 1, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> True to a point.  Sure, anything that works can be said to be reality, but if you really look at more of a traditional art and then compare it to something like Krav Maga, or something that you'd see Peyton Quinn or Marc Macyoung teach, you can see an obvious difference.
> 
> Mike



Im not so sure there is a difference between these arts.  Maybe psychologically, but not physical.  I dont know what Krav Maga is or who Peyton Quinn or Marc Macyoung is but it is very interesting to see the psychology of other Arts.  Just one question though just so i can maybe have a better understanding of Krav Maga. Is Krav Maga a killing art or a tournament art?


----------



## moving target (Mar 1, 2004)

I don't practice Krav Maga but to the best of my knowledge it came from military hand-hand training so if the options are killing and tournament I would place it in killing.


----------



## Black Bear (Mar 1, 2004)

KM divides itself into self-defense techniques, military apps (killing, etc.) and a third category, I forget what they call it, but it's somewhat sportive, contact, single combat like vale tudo. I guess the fourth category would be cardio-kickbox, which is common in a lot of American KM gyms.


----------



## MJS (Mar 1, 2004)

8253 said:
			
		

> Im not so sure there is a difference between these arts.  Maybe psychologically, but not physical.  I dont know what Krav Maga is or who Peyton Quinn or Marc Macyoung is but it is very interesting to see the psychology of other Arts.  Just one question though just so i can maybe have a better understanding of Krav Maga. Is Krav Maga a killing art or a tournament art?



True, there are many things that are very similar in all arts, its just they way the things are applied thats gonna make the difference.  As for KM....its definately a SD art more than a tourny art.  

Mike


----------



## 8253 (Mar 2, 2004)

Thank you for the insights into Krav Maga. It sounds very interesting.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 14, 2004)

What is it that makes KM so pure in its self defense training? Is it the fact that the day you begin you start throwing elbows and knees, using contact, and hitting the bags? I mean you do start learning realistic techniques quickly, is that what makes it so self defense oriented?

7sm


----------



## moving target (Mar 14, 2004)

> I mean you do start learning realistic techniques quickly


What MA doesn't start out with realistic techniques?

I don't practice KM or even know anyone who does. From what I have read/seen on the net it just seems to be orientation. I think (good) KM instructors treat fighting how a good boxing couch teaches boxing. It's just more to the point than some other MA.


----------



## MJS (Mar 15, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> What is it that makes KM so pure in its self defense training? Is it the fact that the day you begin you start throwing elbows and knees, using contact, and hitting the bags? I mean you do start learning realistic techniques quickly, is that what makes it so self defense oriented?
> 
> 7sm



What makes it so pure?  There are a few things that I like about it, and that stand out in my eyes.

1- Easy to learn.  

2- Does not require a huge amount of practice everyday for you to remember what it is that you need to do.

3- Eliminates the kata, fixed stances, meditation, etc. and focuses on the simple, effective things---your knees, elbows, etc.

4- The same movement can be applied to the same sort of attack.  Example: The movement that you would use for a front 2 hand choke is the same that you would use for a choke from the rear or the side.  Therefore, it takes out the thinking, Example 2: Do you really want to stand there while someone is choking you and think to yourself, "Ok, this guy is choking me.  Which one of the 20 choke defences do I do now?"

The debate over the arts that take longer vs. the arts that are 'quick to learn' has been going on for a looooooooooooong time!  Every art has something to offer.  What matters is what the person who is taking the art wants to get out of it.

Mike


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 15, 2004)

moving target said:
			
		

> What MA doesn't start out with realistic techniques?


There are alot of arts that start you learning basic stances, or punches or kicks, without applying them to anything. Just simply learning the stance or form of the stance.

7sm


----------



## MJS (Mar 15, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> There are alot of arts that start you learning basic stances, or punches or kicks, without applying them to anything. Just simply learning the stance or form of the stance.
> 
> 7sm



I agree with that post 100%

Mike


----------



## Black Bear (Mar 16, 2004)

"If half the things you do are useless, you are wasting 50% of your training time." Tony Blauer

"Do nothing which is of no use." Miyamoto Musashi


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 16, 2004)

"Drink Beer."  - Me.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 16, 2004)

Black Bear said:
			
		

> "If half the things you do are useless, you are wasting 50% of your training time." Tony Blauer
> 
> "Do nothing which is of no use." Miyamoto Musashi


Would you consider eliminating the horse stance from your training?
Sean


----------



## Black Bear (Mar 17, 2004)

"Would"????? I did six years ago!


----------



## Black Bear (Mar 17, 2004)

Now: I'm not going to get into a debate here as to whether the horse stance is effective in combat. Because of course some TMAist is going to say I "misunderestimate" it, it's a crucial transitional position, blah blah blah. That's not the point. The point is that I eliminated it because I regarded it as useless. *IF* you regard it as useless, then you should too. And of course if you don't, then by no means! 

I will post shortly about Tony Blauer's precept of "three-dimensionality", which incidentally I no longer adhere to, but it's interesting and relevant to the discussion of "usefulness". But now-- sleep. :O


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 17, 2004)

Black Bear said:
			
		

> "If half the things you do are useless, you are wasting 50% of your training time." Tony Blauer
> 
> "Do nothing which is of no use." Miyamoto Musashi


Very true, I agree completely. However this can be subjective. What one person sees as useless could be what has saved another in combat. 

To me useless techniques are those without application.

7sm


----------



## moving target (Mar 17, 2004)

It does depend on the person. a guy I know nails me with inverted hook kicks (in jkd terminology: a round kickmoving inside to outside rather than outside to inside). I never even try to land one and I don't practice it. I just don't see all that much use for me. To take a more extreem POV. One of my friends doesn't like to kick much. Basicly all he does for kicks is a front thrust. I on the other hand love kicking things (perhaps a little to much  ).

But it seems odd to me that you would practice anything when you couldn't see a point in it objectivly.


----------



## Black Bear (Mar 17, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Very true, I agree completely. However this can be subjective. What one person sees as useless could be what has saved another in combat.
> 
> To me useless techniques are those without application.
> 
> 7sm


Yes. Or indeed techniques whose ostensible application is so remote and implausible as to be useless. I think that much that much most MAists would agree on. 

I myself go further to say that useless includes any technique whose function is encompassed and surpassed within other, more efficient methods. If it is superfluous, it is "useless", philosophically speaking. 

But I know that others are liable to disagree on that.


----------

