Are you really training for self defense?

[Buka]

I think you both have great points.
Training and application.....hmm, I look at it this way. Dating could be described as training for marriage.
That always works.

 

[Steve]

We're just going to disagree over what "application" means, Steve. The person I work with isn't a simulation, though the situation is. I'm applying the actual technique on an actual person, not a simulation. We see it differently, and I suspect we always will.

You train managers right? Ever do role play exercises in your training? I do. They're universally hated but are very helpful . But Is that application? Id say no . Its the same thing .

 

[Juany118]

.

i don’t know, man. your entire post is through the lens of someone who uses the skills and works with people who use the skills. I have no doubt that your training prepares cops to be more effective cops. I don’t think it’s all that useful or practical to prepare office workers, school teachers or college coeds to be cops.

First it requires regular practice BUT if it didn't work the first time a soldier was in a real fire fight he would be screwed. Loading, reloading, aiming and properly discharging a firearm are all fine motor skills. Fine motor skills are the first to degrade when fight or flight kicks in. It's the training under pressure that makes it possible for them to be "combat effective" in their first deployment.

I think the perfect example of this is the Navy Seals actually. You can have been "just" a Gunners Mate on a destroyer, which means you were never in a "fire fightf and then requested transfer to BUDs. If you make it through you are then thrown into some of the most intense ground Operations any soldier will ever see. If the training didn't work, that wouldn't work.

 

[drop bear]

You train managers right? Ever do role play exercises in your training? I do. They're universally hated but are very helpful . But Is that application? Id say no . Its the same thing .

A self defence is made up of a lot of different things. So if I was a track star. And someone attacked me and I ran away. I should be fairly successful at it. If I was a muay Thai fighter and I head kicked the guy I should be successful at that as well.

Looking at self defence is never really looking at the whole thing. But more looking at the things you can do. And then winging it for the parts you can't do. Until you are back to what you know.

So as far as preparation goes. It will be about doing the things you can do. And exposing yourself to situations where you have to wing it. Which should close those gaps off a bit.

In the same way I could do kick boxing and BJJ and probably do alright in MMA to a certain degree.
Which for self defence is good enough.

 

[drop bear]

I see what you mean. I think that depends on the intimidation factor, which (while having a similar effect) isn't really de-escalation as most people use the term.

What would you call it?

 

[Steve]

.


First it requires regular practice BUT if it didn't work the first time a soldier was in a real fire fight he would be screwed. Loading, reloading, aiming and properly discharging a firearm are all fine motor skills. Fine motor skills are the first to degrade when fight or flight kicks in. It's the training under pressure that makes it possible for them to be "combat effective" in their first deployment.

I think the perfect example of this is the Navy Seals actually. You can have been "just" a Gunners Mate on a destroyer, which means you were never in a "fire fightf and then requested transfer to BUDs. If you make it through you are then thrown into some of the most intense ground Operations any soldier will ever see. If the training didn't work, that wouldn't work.

You're comparing an office worker, teacher, soccer mom or college coed to a Navy Seal? What's the wash out rate for navy seals? Are there Navy Seals who train and graduate from their training program with no intention of actually applying the skills? Do any Navy Seals who teach at their school do so without any actual experience applying the skills in context?

I think there are more reliable, effective ways to train people for self defense than navy seal training. But don't get me wrong. I have no doubt at all that the training they provide is top notch, and understand that the wash out rate is a necessary part.

 

[Steve]

A self defence is made up of a lot of different things. So if I was a track star. And someone attacked me and I ran away. I should be fairly successful at it. If I was a muay Thai fighter and I head kicked the guy I should be successful at that as well.

Looking at self defence is never really looking at the whole thing. But more looking at the things you can do. And then winging it for the parts you can't do. Until you are back to what you know.

So as far as preparation goes. It will be about doing the things you can do. And exposing yourself to situations where you have to wing it. Which should close those gaps off a bit.

In the same way I could do kick boxing and BJJ and probably do alright in MMA to a certain degree.
Which for self defence is good enough.

I agree with this. There's always cross over, if you're actually developing the skills you think you're developing.

 

[Juany118]

You're comparing an office worker, teacher, soccer mom or college coed to a Navy Seal? What's the wash out rate for navy seals? Are there Navy Seals who train and graduate from their training program with no intention of actually applying the skills? Do any Navy Seals who teach at their school do so without any actual experience applying the skills in context?

I think there are more reliable, effective ways to train people for self defense than navy seal training. But don't get me wrong. I have no doubt at all that the training they provide is top notch, and understand that the wash out rate is a necessary part.

No I am comparing training methods. Your claim is that pressure testing doesn't prepare people. The pressure testing that you get in the US Army is little different than you get in civilian martial arts training sparring. Tbh in terms of unarmed combatives sparring in a MA club is HARDER, the really only go to the "sparring" level with firearms in war games and such. So if military training works, so does sparring. It really is that simple.

 

[oftheherd1]

.


First it requires regular practice BUT if it didn't work the first time a soldier was in a real fire fight he would be screwed. Loading, reloading, aiming and properly discharging a firearm are all fine motor skills. Fine motor skills are the first to degrade when fight or flight kicks in. It's the training under pressure that makes it possible for them to be "combat effective" in their first deployment.

I think the perfect example of this is the Navy Seals actually. You can have been "just" a Gunners Mate on a destroyer, which means you were never in a "fire fightf and then requested transfer to BUDs. If you make it through you are then thrown into some of the most intense ground Operations any soldier will ever see. If the training didn't work, that wouldn't work.

Interesting post as I see it, but maybe not as your intended. You should teach martial arts and self defense, simultaneously imparting the fact that only the student can ensure they can use their instruction and that it may actually work. Sometimes soldiers in their first combat do slow down their reactions. Some freeze. That usually goes away quickly as the desire to survive kicks in, but it sometimes happens.

There is no doubt prior training helps with that a great deal. Sometimes a soldier may become somewhat befuddled but the training unconsciously kicks in without the soldier realizing it. Especially in short self defense courses, that should be dealt with so the students are prepared for the possibility they may be inclined to become befuddled or freeze.

Navy Seals, as much other military fighting skill, must be taught, 'pressure tested' as much as possible, then used in combat. However, it would be uncommon (unfortunately not unheard of) for someone to be thrown into 'the most intense' fighting without others around to bolster their responses. Something not likely to be true for even the martial artist, much less the self defense student. So both need to know that and be taught to prepare for individual action.

But all that said, frankly Navy Seals get so much training, they are very much more likely to simply begin reacting without much thought. Other elite military units are much the same. That is one reason it is sometimes difficult to compare MA or self defense training with military training. We MA seldom get the repeated intense training military elite get.

 

[Steve]

No I am comparing training methods. Your claim is that pressure testing doesn't prepare people. The pressure testing that you get in the US Army is little different than you get in civilian martial arts training sparring. Tbh in terms of unarmed combatives sparring in a MA club is HARDER, the really only go to the "sparring" level with firearms in war games and such. So if military training works, so does sparring. It really is that simple.

No, I didn't claim that pressure testing doesn't prepare people. I've said repeatedly that pressure testing (well, I said "good training" I think) is very effective at preparing people.

I am claiming that pressure testing leads to application in every human activity except self defense training, and that the two aren't the same thing (but are often conflated because they are so directly related in human experience). Pressure testing gets you to the rung on the ladder. You have to then take a step. You can't skip the application part of the cycle and just pressure test your way to the top of the ladder and declare yourself an expert. You cannot train someone to an expert level in anything while excluding "real world" application (whatever that might look like).

Looking at the training a Navy Seal receives, they start with a little over a year of formal training. if Wikipedia can be trusted,"All Navy SEALs must attend and graduate from their rating's 24-week "A" School known as Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) school, a basic parachutist course and then the 26-week SEAL Qualification Training program.[1]"

In this training, I presume they are applying the skills they are learning (i.e., they are actually diving underwater or jumping out of planes). So, at a basic level, they are applying skills. So far, so good.

Then, they go on to more training. But the part that I think is particularly relevant is that, once they are outside of the formal schooling environment, they are assigned to a team and receive about 18 months more of what appears to be structured OJT.

The key here is that an office worker, school teacher or a lot of folks who are interested in self defense training won't ever get that OJT. They don't even really get the benefit of the same quality of training because there is no corollary to diving or jumping out of a plane.

 

[Buka]

Part of the frogman's ballad...

I’m a hard bodied hairy chested, Ruttin’ Tuttin’ Shootin’ Parachutin’ demolition double cap krimpin’ Navy Frogman.
There aint nothing I can’t do.

Former SEALS have told me that their training, surviving their training without quitting, was harder than any mission they were ever on. I believe that's part of the point and method of their success in missions.

I think Martial training should be similar, obviously on a lesser level, [so don't go getting all in my face about that comment] but similar in that training should be harder than any professional fight, harder than any self defense situation, harder than anything you ever do on purpose.....other than raising a family and working your butt off for a lifetime.

La-te-da training in Martial Arts ain't good for nothing other than having fun. If that's all you want, so be it, you're all set. But if it ain't....well, you know.

 

[Juany118]

Interesting post as I see it, but maybe not as your intended. You should teach martial arts and self defense, simultaneously imparting the fact that only the student can ensure they can use their instruction and that it may actually work. Sometimes soldiers in their first combat do slow down their reactions. Some freeze. That usually goes away quickly as the desire to survive kicks in, but it sometimes happens.

There is no doubt prior training helps with that a great deal. Sometimes a soldier may become somewhat befuddled but the training unconsciously kicks in without the soldier realizing it. Especially in short self defense courses, that should be dealt with so the students are prepared for the possibility they may be inclined to become befuddled or freeze.

Navy Seals, as much other military fighting skill, must be taught, 'pressure tested' as much as possible, then used in combat. However, it would be uncommon (unfortunately not unheard of) for someone to be thrown into 'the most intense' fighting without others around to bolster their responses. Something not likely to be true for even the martial artist, much less the self defense student. So both need to know that and be taught to prepare for individual action.

But all that said, frankly Navy Seals get so much training, they are very much more likely to simply begin reacting without much thought. Other elite military units are much the same. That is one reason it is sometimes difficult to compare MA or self defense training with military training. We MA seldom get the repeated intense training military elite get.

The purpose of naming SEALs was simply this. A "soldier" is trained to fight from the jump. The Gunners Mate isn't. Yet a Gunners mate can become a SEAL.

 

[Juany118]

No, I didn't claim that pressure testing doesn't prepare people. I've said repeatedly that pressure testing (well, I said "good training" I think) is very effective at preparing people.

I am claiming that pressure testing leads to application in every human activity except self defense training, and that the two aren't the same thing (but are often conflated because they are so directly related in human experience). Pressure testing gets you to the rung on the ladder. You have to then take a step. You can't skip the application part of the cycle and just pressure test your way to the top of the ladder and declare yourself an expert. You cannot train someone to an expert level in anything while excluding "real world" application (whatever that might look like).

Looking at the training a Navy Seal receives, they start with a little over a year of formal training. if Wikipedia can be trusted,"All Navy SEALs must attend and graduate from their rating's 24-week "A" School known as Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) school, a basic parachutist course and then the 26-week SEAL Qualification Training program.[1]"

In this training, I presume they are applying the skills they are learning (i.e., they are actually diving underwater or jumping out of planes). So, at a basic level, they are applying skills. So far, so good.

Then, they go on to more training. But the part that I think is particularly relevant is that, once they are outside of the formal schooling environment, they are assigned to a team and receive about 18 months more of what appears to be structured OJT.

The key here is that an office worker, school teacher or a lot of folks who are interested in self defense training won't ever get that OJT. They don't even really get the benefit of the same quality of training because there is no corollary to diving or jumping out of a plane.

Your claim is "pressure testing works everywhere else BUT..." In one circumstance? Sorry but that has some MAJOR issues with logical consistency.

See my response above as to why I mentioned SEALs btw. It was an attempt to use a bit of hyperbole to make a point.

 

[Steve]

Your claim is "pressure testing works everywhere else BUT..." In one circumstance? Sorry but that has some MAJOR issues with logical consistency.

See my response above as to why I mentioned SEALs btw. It was an attempt to use a bit of hyperbole to make a point.

I'm claiming pressure testing works in exactly the same way in every situation. The difference between most self defense training and all other training isn't pressure testing . as I've said several times, good training is very helpful. But training leads to performance in every human activity except self defense . Training, even really good training, has to culminate in application . Even seals perform. You said so. Wikipedia also says so.

Regarding the seals training, I'm not too worried about why you brought it up . I don't think its hyperbolic as much as its just not apples to apples when you think about professional violence and civilian self defense . Seal training is more analogous to cop or professional combat sports training. At its root though it works the same. Its still training.

 

[Steve]

The purpose of naming SEALs was simply this. A "soldier" is trained to fight from the jump. The Gunners Mate isn't. Yet a Gunners mate can become a SEAL.

Let me try a different tack . The training is sound. It works . Seal recruits are trained to fight from the jump .

So the training is solid.

But most people don't succeed in the training . At each stage, more people wash out . The training is solid and those who survive to the end are well trained . But most don't .

And at the end of the training, the newbie seal is ready to go . And its at this point the newbie seal starts accumulating experience that leads first to full performance and expertise .

The key here isn't the training . Its the individual and what happens after the training . To be like self defense training, the seal recruit would never graduate from their school . Instead of being a year long, it would be perpetual and incestuous (meaning the trainees are certified in training as junior and eventually senior instructors.) The training itself would become viewed as the end rather than the means .

 

[Juany118]

Let me try a different tack . The training is sound. It works . Seal recruits are trained to fight from the jump .

So the training is solid.

But most people don't succeed in the training . At each stage, more people wash out . The training is solid and those who survive to the end are well trained . But most don't .

And at the end of the training, the newbie seal is ready to go . And its at this point the newbie seal starts accumulating experience that leads first to full performance and expertise .

The key here isn't the training . Its the individual and what happens after the training . To be like self defense training, the seal recruit would never graduate from their school . Instead of being a year long, it would be perpetual and incestuous (meaning the trainees are certified in training as junior and eventually senior instructors.) The training itself would become viewed as the end rather than the means .

And you keep my opically focusing on SEALs.

Can you explain how pressure testing in self defense training doesn't lead to application? That seems to be a major flaw in your argument because pressure testing requires application. That is what you are testing.

 

[oftheherd1]

The purpose of naming SEALs was simply this. A "soldier" is trained to fight from the jump. The Gunners Mate isn't. Yet a Gunners mate can become a SEAL.

Now you have me confused enough to ask questions. Strictly speaking, SEALs are not Soldiers, just as Marines and Airmen are not soldiers. If you doubt that, go ask a Seal, or Marine, or Airman if they are soldiers. But when you are talking about service members who are trained for combat roles, how is a combat arms soldier better trained than a gunner's mate? Mind you, I never served with any Navy units, so it is possible. A gunner's mate, even an oiler if they still have them, can be trained to be a SEAL. Depends on the man.

I don't understand what you mean by a soldier being trained to fight from the jump. I am guessing you mean from exposure to a combat operation, whether attacking or defending? Would not a navy gunner be also, whether on a large standoff gun or a smaller caliber and closer to the battle?

Your claim is "pressure testing works everywhere else BUT..." In one circumstance? Sorry but that has some MAJOR issues with logical consistency.

See my response above as to why I mentioned SEALs btw. It was an attempt to use a bit of hyperbole to make a point.

This I am inclined to agree with. I think testing learned skills, whether military combat or self defense, done as near to the real thing as possible, should give a person more confidence they can perform correctly. It also just plain makes them better. As I mentioned before, under stress, we tend to do what we train without thinking.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You train managers right? Ever do role play exercises in your training? I do. They're universally hated but are very helpful . But Is that application? Id say no . Its the same thing .

That's the same thing I discussed in another thread (I think) about de-escalation. Role playing doesn't present real resistance, because the emotion is missing. The physical mechanics of a throw or punch don't depend upon whether a person wants to kill me or rob me - just on whether they want me to throw them or punch them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What would you call it?

I've never really thought about calling it anything other than intimidation to back someone down.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Let me try a different tack . The training is sound. It works . Seal recruits are trained to fight from the jump .

So the training is solid.

But most people don't succeed in the training . At each stage, more people wash out . The training is solid and those who survive to the end are well trained . But most don't .

And at the end of the training, the newbie seal is ready to go . And its at this point the newbie seal starts accumulating experience that leads first to full performance and expertise .

The key here isn't the training . Its the individual and what happens after the training . To be like self defense training, the seal recruit would never graduate from their school . Instead of being a year long, it would be perpetual and incestuous (meaning the trainees are certified in training as junior and eventually senior instructors.) The training itself would become viewed as the end rather than the means .

I think this is a pretty valid point, Steve. I don't assume I can make a "fighter" out of everyone. I'm pretty sure I can improve most people's chances if they decide to fight back, and can improve their ability to make the choice to fight back. But all that is really up to them. Some folks won't put in the harder effort, won't train harder, and will request soft sparring - the equivalent of failing out of SEAL school. They will be less well-equipped than folks who press harder. There are folks who trained (and still do) harder than me, and they're most likely better prepared than I am.