Are you really training for self defense?

[Steve]

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.

I'm not at all focused on seal training . I'm using the example you provided. If you want to talk about learning to play golf, ride a bike, cook, drive a tank or anything, it's the same .

It's not a flaw in my argument. Rather it's the flaw in self defense training that you are noticing. Those folks who do apply skills learned actually progress beyond application and actually begin to develop expertise . So, the skills a cop learns and applies are developed. The skills a school teacher learns are not applied. It's what I said in the first place. You, I believe, have it spot on regarding training's role in preparing people to take action. I just think you overvalue the training and undervalue (to the point now of completely dismissing) the critical importance of moving out of training and gaining actual experience.

 

[Steve]

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.

So close . The mechanics of applying the 5 step thomas kilmann conflict model are the same too. And a skilled trainer who has experience can do a pretty good job of simulating a realistic encounter through role play .But you accept in your management training that its artificial . So how again is this differebt from your self defense training? how is the emotion missing from role play in a de-escalation exercise and not missing from your physical training? I mean, you talk about emotion in one, and about the mechanics of a punch in the other.

Do you believe that your training adequately prepares a manager to apply the skills you're teaching them? How likely do you think that your trainees are going to perform flawlessly out of the gate? And does this likelihood go up or down if the trainee never applies the skills? And is this trainee who has never applied the skills someone you think should be teaching other managers the skill?

 

[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.

This is exactly right. What you're identifying here is what happens naturally when people apply skills and develop expertise. They move beyond simple application and are able to use skills in different contexts. For example, if you are taught to change the brakes on a '69 VW Bug, and get comfortable with the drum brakes, you would then be able to transfer that experience to other similar situations. Or it can be much more complex, where you might become an expert in one field or system and then apply that expertise to another. For example, an MMA fighter or a cop has experience that can be helpful to a civilian for self defense.

In order to do this, though, you have to first build the skill. You can't use your experience with brake jobs to change the drum brakes in a '84 Ford F150 if you've only ever read the Hayne's guide. Reading the book isn't the same thing, even if you intellectually understand every step.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So close . The mechanics of applying the 5 step thomas kilmann conflict model are the same too. And a skilled trainer who has experience can do a pretty good job of simulating a realistic encounter through role play .

The same point I made in the other discussion. A very skilled person can simulate the right reactions in role playing, and give a reasonable resistance to the person practicing.

But you accept in your management training that its artificial . So how again is this differebt from your self defense training? how is the emotion missing from role play in a de-escalation exercise and not missing from your physical training? I mean, you talk about emotion in one, and about the mechanics of a punch in the other.

In one case (role-playing) we're practicing working (with words and posture) on someone's mind. In physical self-defense, the physical mechanics of the technique are more important. Whether the guy is cold and mechanical or angry doesn't change the mechanics (it might change what openings they present, but once you find the opening, it's the same technique). Physical interaction isn't analogous to mental interaction.

Do you believe that your training adequately prepares a manager to apply the skills you're teaching them? How likely do you think that your trainees are going to perform flawlessly out of the gate? And does this likelihood go up or down if the trainee never applies the skills? And is this trainee who has never applied the skills someone you think should be teaching other managers the skill?

Actually, I rarely use role playing in training. That's not usually the nature of what I'm teaching. I teach them approaches to delegation (how to choose what to delegate, to whom, and how much oversight) and things like that. I'll use role-playing on those kinds of things more when it's 1-1 (coaching), so they can practice for a specific situation. But even then, my reactions (based upon "most likely") might not be what the other person presents. If they apply the principles and approaches over and over in everyday practice (like students do with their blocks, throws, and strikes), they'll get good enough at them to apply them under pressure. My short management training is not analogous to the ongoing training in MA. It's more analogous to a short seminar, because that's usually what it is.

 

[Steve]

The same point I made in the other discussion. A very skilled person can simulate the right reactions in role playing, and give a reasonable resistance to the person practicing.


In one case (role-playing) we're practicing working (with words and posture) on someone's mind. In physical self-defense, the physical mechanics of the technique are more important. Whether the guy is cold and mechanical or angry doesn't change the mechanics (it might change what openings they present, but once you find the opening, it's the same technique). Physical interaction isn't analogous to mental interaction.



Actually, I rarely use role playing in training. That's not usually the nature of what I'm teaching. I teach them approaches to delegation (how to choose what to delegate, to whom, and how much oversight) and things like that. I'll use role-playing on those kinds of things more when it's 1-1 (coaching), so they can practice for a specific situation. But even then, my reactions (based upon "most likely") might not be what the other person presents. If they apply the principles and approaches over and over in everyday practice (like students do with their blocks, throws, and strikes), they'll get good enough at them to apply them under pressure. My short management training is not analogous to the ongoing training in MA. It's more analogous to a short seminar, because that's usually what it is.

Okay. I wasnt suggesting you use role play exclusively . but as you say, it's very helpful when you're teaching a behavior .

As foe the rest, I would say that a skilled role player can help the training be more effective, but a person will not internalize and master a skill through role play (or any other training technique) alone . Training can only get you so far no matter how good .

On another note, I think you've made an excellent point. How do you develop a strong manager? You train them a little and then they do the job a lot. Then you train them some more. You review what they may have let go and reinforce what they've internalized, and then you build on that.

This is how we teach people to do most everything, except self defense training. you still haven't given me that example I asked for.

 

[blackbeltsomeday]

Very interesting article. I am just beginning my martial arts journey and I can see how martial arts mean different things to different people. I do not consider myself to be learning self defense right now, just some fun moves that burn some calories.

 

[Buka]

I should probably read the whole thread again, I'm not sure if the question has offered up any answers. Maybe the question "Are you really training for self defense?" is rhetorical. I'll leave that up to the Philosoraptors to figure out.

If not, okay - Why, yes, yes I am really training for self defense. Thank you for asking. Not all the time, mind you, other parts of my training are for just plain fun, but for the most part, yes.

 

[drop bear]

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.

Depends how you are pressure testing.

You become like the people you associate with. So if you train with a bunch of wimps. You will become a wimp.

Training and becoming the top wimp. Then teaching other people to become top wimps. Doesn't do anybody any good in a practical sense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay. I wasnt suggesting you use role play exclusively . but as you say, it's very helpful when you're teaching a behavior .

As foe the rest, I would say that a skilled role player can help the training be more effective, but a person will not internalize and master a skill through role play (or any other training technique) alone . Training can only get you so far no matter how good .

On another note, I think you've made an excellent point. How do you develop a strong manager? You train them a little and then they do the job a lot. Then you train them some more. You review what they may have let go and reinforce what they've internalized, and then you build on that.

This is how we teach people to do most everything, except self defense training. you still haven't given me that example I asked for.

Actually, I have. I teach managers to handle the common things, and how to apply those principles to more extreme situations. They "practice" on the everyday stuff (again, like when I practice throws against resisting partners, etc.). They then apply variations of those same skills when things blow up (which happens seldom enough, they can't "practice" on it) - just like self-defense. Again, very similar to the pilot training analogy. Pilots learn how to fly a plane, practice flying it a bunch in mundane conditions, then sometimes some of them have to apply those skills in a different way for emergencies (high wind sheer, engine on fire, etc.) which they've never been able to practice except in simulation and in the mundane use of the skills they recombine.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Depends how you are pressure testing.

You become like the people you associate with. So if you train with a bunch of wimps. You will become a wimp.

Training and becoming the top wimp. Then teaching other people to become top wimps. Doesn't do anybody any good in a practical sense.

I won't say it doesn't do anybody any good - but it's not a great approach for the topic at hand. Given a choice, I'd rather be top wimp than mid-wimp, I guess.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay. I wasnt suggesting you use role play exclusively . but as you say, it's very helpful when you're teaching a behavior .

To clarify, I see role-playing like situational training we do. Someone has to understand an attack/scenario well to provide a reasonable input for their partner to defend. But it's not at all like sparring and other resistive training methods.

 

[drop bear]

I won't say it doesn't do anybody any good - but it's not a great approach for the topic at hand. Given a choice, I'd rather be top wimp than mid-wimp, I guess.

This is my experience with self defence guys. (As a trend don't get caught up) somewhere along the line they have trained themselves into becoming collapso tapout monkeys.

Side control suddenly. Becomes a fight ending submission. Every throw works. Punching breaks their structure.

Which then provides me with an arsenal of pressure tested rubbish. That I can pass on to my students.

Get one football player come in and suddenly he has wrecked everyone in the room.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is my experience with self defence guys. (As a trend don't get caught up) somewhere along the line they have trained themselves into becoming collapso tapout monkeys.

Side control suddenly. Becomes a fight ending submission. Every throw works. Punching breaks their structure.

Which then provides me with an arsenal of pressure tested rubbish. That I can pass on to my students.

Get one football player come in and suddenly he has wrecked everyone in the room.

Agreed. It's a pet peeve of mine. I've heard instructors say black belt defense lines should be 100% successful. That's just LARPing. There are some drills where being a tapout monkey is reasonable, but only a few. It wants real pressure to get good feedback on what really breaks structure.

Mind you, all of my punches work. Every time. But I'm just that good.

 

[drop bear]

Agreed. It's a pet peeve of mine. I've heard instructors say black belt defense lines should be 100% successful. That's just LARPing. There are some drills where being a tapout monkey is reasonable, but only a few. It wants real pressure to get good feedback on what really breaks structure.

Mind you, all of my punches work. Every time. But I'm just that good.

My theory by the way is hard contact drilling creates the problem. So you stand there with a crap intent and someone comes up and cranks the crap out of a body part.

Of course you are going to wind up collapsing as fast as you can.

Most of the defence to the technique has already been ignored.

 

[Steve]

Actually, I have. I teach managers to handle the common things, and how to apply those principles to more extreme situations. They "practice" on the everyday stuff (again, like when I practice throws against resisting partners, etc.). They then apply variations of those same skills when things blow up (which happens seldom enough, they can't "practice" on it) - just like self-defense. Again, very similar to the pilot training analogy. Pilots learn how to fly a plane, practice flying it a bunch in mundane conditions, then sometimes some of them have to apply those skills in a different way for emergencies (high wind sheer, engine on fire, etc.) which they've never been able to practice except in simulation and in the mundane use of the skills they recombine.

Okay. So, I think we're having trouble with the word "practice." You're using it in a few different ways. When you're referring to pilots practicing and your students in aikido practicing, one isn't actually practice. It's actually flying a plane. You can simulate flying a plane, but we don't run into the same issue with pilots, because there is a clear and obvious difference between simulation and reality. In self defense training, it's all simulation. Unless, of course, you have some outlet for application, whether professional or personal.

further, a pilot can only really move beyond the basics because they have actual experience flying planes. Simply put, you cannot skip the flying the plane part. You can't simulate your way to success in an emergency.

 

[Steve]

To clarify, I see role-playing like situational training we do. Someone has to understand an attack/scenario well to provide a reasonable input for their partner to defend. But it's not at all like sparring and other resistive training methods.

I actually agree with Juany on this. Role playing exercises can be as effective as any other form of scenario based training. It's great if used well and in the right context. It's still training, though.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My theory by the way is hard contact drilling creates the problem. So you stand there with a crap intent and someone comes up and cranks the crap out of a body part.

Of course you are going to wind up collapsing as fast as you can.

Most of the defence to the technique has already been ignored.

That would do it. If I consistently got joints torqued to near-injury, I'd tap out like a maniac every time they touched me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay. So, I think we're having trouble with the word "practice." You're using it in a few different ways. When you're referring to pilots practicing and your students in aikido practicing, one isn't actually practice. It's actually flying a plane. You can simulate flying a plane, but we don't run into the same issue with pilots, because there is a clear and obvious difference between simulation and reality. In self defense training, it's all simulation. Unless, of course, you have some outlet for application, whether professional or personal.

But that's an artificial distinction, Steve. Flying a plane and sparring are both ways of practicing physical skills. They are also both ways of applying those physical skills. You can get practice with drills, or you can get practice by actually applying the techniques to a live "opponent" (person or the environment your'e flying in).

further, a pilot can only really move beyond the basics because they have actual experience flying planes. Simply put, you cannot skip the flying the plane part. You can't simulate your way to success in an emergency.

Again, I see simulations/scenarios in MA as being like simulations in pilot training. I see sparring as the routine flying. Because you're actually doing the thing you've trained for, like a pilot flying a plane under reasonable conditions. And pilots never get to practice emergency situations except in drills and simulators - just like SD training can't practice defending against a live knife from someone really trying to gut you. Both of our distinctions are artificial. You don't see flying a plane as similar to sparring. I do. I don't think either of us is going to change the others' mind, because there's some logic to both positions.

 

[Juany118]

I'm not at all focused on seal training . I'm using the example you provided. If you want to talk about learning to play golf, ride a bike, cook, drive a tank or anything, it's the same .

It's not a flaw in my argument. Rather it's the flaw in self defense training that you are noticing. Those folks who do apply skills learned actually progress beyond application and actually begin to develop expertise . So, the skills a cop learns and applies are developed. The skills a school teacher learns are not applied. It's what I said in the first place. You, I believe, have it spot on regarding training's role in preparing people to take action. I just think you overvalue the training and undervalue (to the point now of completely dismissing) the critical importance of moving out of training and gaining actual experience.

The physical skills of the teacher can become applied through regular practice/pressure testing. That is the key. Going to a class then not practicing means little. I am not referring to that. I am referring to something that is practiced there after.

 

[Buka]

Very interesting article. I am just beginning my martial arts journey and I can see how martial arts mean different things to different people. I do not consider myself to be learning self defense right now, just some fun moves that burn some calories.

Welcome to MartialTalk, BlackBeltSomeday. Hope you enjoy it, bro.