Effectiveness of Empty Hand Arnis

[loki09789]

Tim H.

My posts about the names/art.... were directed to the post by Tapps about MA being 'frozen' because RP was the art, and now he was dead. For the sake of that discussion if the art is truly frozen at the death of RP, then even the naming of techniques, drills... falls under the frozen idea. I never said that I agree with it, only trying to understand how a frozen art can have so many variations on the source - if it it truly frozen. The comments were about and for that topic.

I don't think that the art is 'frozen,' personally. I think that it is a living thing that various groups are keeping alive in their own way, all based on the core training that RP established. Personally, I don't CARE if you change the naming of the techniques, drills or organization of MA to make it easier/better for your students. If it works for you, go for it.

Paul Martin

 

[Tgace]

Heres a link to a free "self-defense" book. It was funded by a defense spray company so theres a sales pitch in the middle of it, but its a pretty comprehensive book dealing with a lot of issues on the subject.

http://www.lubrinco.com/lg7steps.html

 

[loki09789]

"One is the difference between hockey and individual self defense is in hockey you are relying on the collective skill of a team"

which can be analogous to the collective skill of the individual if you can concieve of the team as a single unit - which you seem to have done if you are adapting the unit leader tactical definitions from the military for your individual self defense training.

"In a team sport, the skill of the individual is only part of the equation."

Much like good punching is only part of the equation to a total individual skill set.

"Perhaps this is a good analogy for Military or SWAT team units to illustrate how tactics and playing like a team is more vital then individual poweress and skill, but it falls short, I think, when "

Well recognizing the team as a single operative unit is still less of a stretch than cabinets and cars...

" refering to individual experience vs. practice because of the team element. Perhaps an anology comparing a sport like boxing to real fighting"

I am comparing a 'fight' to a 'game' because they are the performance arenas that the unit has trained and prepared to perform in. Comparing experience to practice is incongruous and inaccurate.


"But then we still run into the other major difference"

An analogy, by its very nature is limited and flawed if you take it too far....

"The first "fold" is that training will never fully simulate the real thing. In Hockey, you can ... simulate the actual games"

Sounds like tactical scenario training or sparring or tapi tapi if you can translate the team/unit coordinating all its parts to the individual/unit coordinating all its parts.

"and all the elements will remain the same."

Don't all the elements of a fighters training stay the same? If you are implying that hockey practice is the same as hockey game, that is far from true because, for those who play ANY sport, practices are never as 'real' as games. Just like fight training, no matter how intense, will not be the same.

"You cannot simulate a life or death circumstance."

Agreed, but you can come damn close in training with full contact work, scenario training/sparring to simulate elements or phases that a student might encounter and then put them together with a safety buffer of some kind.

"Preparing for a game and preparing for defending your life are extremely different in this regard."

Again, analogies only go so far....

" The other part of the "fold" here is that in combat there are no rules. In hockey there are rules and regulations that controls the way the game has to be played. "

combat and self defense are different, but combat DOES have rules that combatives (at least USA combatives) are expected to adhere to such as the laws of land warfare, geneva code, rules of engagement....

In self defense, there are state laws covering use of force/deadly force

"In hockey, you don't have to worry about the rules changing and all your plays becoming obsolete."

Well, yeah you do because the officialling from game to game can change the way a game is played. Sometimes they call every little thing, sometimes they only call the really bad stuff. You just have to be adaptive.

"This element of "no rules" adds to the fact that there are an infinate amount of possabilities, factors, and elements in combat."

Tactical and technical training, I would hope, reduces the infinite into logical options - consider the baiting tactic/concept as a way to limit the infinite angles that your opponent can counter from.

"In hockey, you can simulate a game every practice, and the fundamental elements remain the same. In combat, the fundamentals could change very drastically, so you cannot practice for only one (or even a few) sets of elements without risking getting lambasted when the real thing comes along."

The fundamentals of combat/self defense, I would think, would be the same in training or in application, otherwise how could we ever train for self defense preparation or combat units justify the expense of money on field exercises that 'simulate' combat so they can practice applying the fundamentals at an individual and unit level.

"There is an element in team cooperation that is nessicary for success that may not be an element in individual self defense"

But if the translation can be made from team/unit to individual/unit, team coordination is similar to body coordination.

"Under an environment without rules, the better fighter doesn't even win most of the time, because the other side can always change the "rules" to work in their favor (hey looky...I brought my gun to the knife fight!)."

Honestly, in this day and age, if you are not expecting a gun to pop up in a self defense situation, you are not the better fighter. And there are certain constants that you can learn - beyond justfied use of force laws for your area. Biomechanics dictates that your opponent(s) can only move in certain ways at certain speeds. Psychological study can help you recognize body signals/language/distance (this study is called Haptics), verbal signals. Medical training/study can help you recognize the indicators of drug/alcohol use.... things can happen fast, but there are 'rules.' that can be understood.

"Now in regards to the idea that "no training situation adequetly simulates real combat" supporting the idea that real fighting is nessicary to know if your methods work"

I think the original message, that I agree with, is that - all other things being equal - the fighter with real experience will have a deeper understanding relative to the person with no real experience. This is true in other arenas, otherwise it wouldn't be such an advantage in the job market ('No one wants to hire me because I have no experience, but I can't get experience if no one hires me...')

"So, lets say I have been in 200 fights. I would consider that a lot of fights, but that doesn't mean that I will be a great fighter."

For self defense, 200 fights means your doing something wrong. For a combative, you would definitely have a wealth of experience that, while not automatically making you a great fighter, would influence your future training much more than no real experience. Otherwise, veterans of combat would not be so sought out for instructor/trainer positions for military units.

"Since no combat situation is the same, and there are infinate possabilities, success in one fight does not determine that I will be successful in another. "

But success in 200 would mean that you had a solid technical and tactical handle on the fundamental that allowed you to survive/succeed.

"I do think that the "Combat System" should be field tested, but that doesn't mean that I have to personally test it to see if it works."

And no one has said that you have to seek out fights to gain this experience. That is ridiculous and counter to sound self defense practices.

"So that 1st encounter is very important when your "green." "

But if every situation is different and unique, and you can't train/prepare for them all, wouldn't you be 'green' in every engagement?

"but I can relate in that my first real fight I was totally in a daze, but in my other encounters after that my head was fairly clear and I was more able to respond appropriately."

So your fight experience has helped you...if it got easier to deal with from the first to now. I am sure that you bring this experience into play when you teach your inexperienced students to help prepare them...

"Bottom line: Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessicity."

Again, I don't remember reading that anyone thought experience was the end all be all deciding factor, but I do think it is a big deal.

"The fight is the test, not the lesson. You may learn from taking tests, but not enything you couldn't learn in the lesson."

The fight is NOT a test, it is a life and death event that you hope to survive, it is reality, and it sucks.

The lessons and tests evaluate your adeptness in your system, experience reveals things for the fighter that will never come up in training. What you do with that revelation develops the fighter first, after that it's up to you what to do with it.

Paul M

 

[DoxN4cer]

Originally posted by Renegade
Using other systems as examples for structuring terminology is not changing the system, the material is still Modern Arnis.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

"it's all the same..."

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by loki09789
Tim H.

My posts about the names/art.... were directed to the post by Tapps about MA being 'frozen' because RP was the art, and now he was dead. For the sake of that discussion if the art is truly frozen at the death of RP, then even the naming of techniques, drills... falls under the frozen idea. I never said that I agree with it, only trying to understand how a frozen art can have so many variations on the source - if it it truly frozen. The comments were about and for that topic.

I don't think that the art is 'frozen,' personally. I think that it is a living thing that various groups are keeping alive in their own way, all based on the core training that RP established. Personally, I don't CARE if you change the naming of the techniques, drills or organization of MA to make it easier/better for your students. If it works for you, go for it.

Paul Martin

No one is saying "Modern Arnis" as a progressive art is frozen. "Modern Arnis as Remy taught" is frozen because the man is dead. "Modern Arnis as a progressive art" is alive in well. There is a big difference between the two.

All I was saying was that in order to appropriately progress, we still have to maintain what Professor taught, otherwise his teaching will be lost in the progression. Tapps was agreeing with me, I believe. :asian:

 

[loki09789]

"Paul is right, Remy was the art. What he left us is now frozen."

Tapp's words are there.

Following the logic of this statement. Remy was the art, and what he left as the art is frozen, then it is frozen. If the art is frozen, everything else is variation and personalization. Based on this logic ANY practice will not be "true MA" if you add or change anything - even the names.

My point is that this logic is not accurate relative to what I was taught about MA or RP, directly from the man at seminar, from his books and videos or through instructors.

I would agree that MA is progressive and doing fine, and will change in technique, drill and terminology over time. But it will always have to come from a kernel of stuff that keeps it rooted in the source.

My big question is what was that core of concepts/techniques/drills that RP presented as MA? I know it wasn't a set curriculum, but there was still a core.


Paul M.

 

[loki09789]

Originally posted by Renegade
A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Actually it is "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"...
I don't want to smell you after you have tended your MA rose PEE YEW!


Paul M

 

[loki09789]

"A college professor teaching medical science to pre-med students doesn't have to have had Polio to understand the biology of how the disease works, or to understand how to cure it."

No, but if the idea is to compare a Doctor in a teaching role to a Martial artist/Instructor - it would be more logical to focus on the relationship between the Doctor/Martial Artist and his experience practicing/applying his trade and craft - not the experience as a patient/victim. There is a lot to be said for secondary and tirtiary sourse 'experience' through research but there is a lot of personal validity in Impirical research.

In the case of Doctors, yes Doctors have loads of medical practice experience in their field before they can instruct.

Paul M

 

[Cruentus]

I am responding to your last post regarding your hockey analogy.

Don't take offense to this please, but what I am not going to do here is respond by breaking up your post quote by quote. I don't mind that you did this to me, but through my experience I have found (as I have been guilty of doing this too) that it alienates the other readers. We'll be able to follow our conversation, but they won't. So I'll try to respond without totaly doing that.

You did say:

An analogy, by its very nature is limited and flawed if you take it too far....

I totally agree with this. Your analogy might apply in some comparisons, and you did describe some similarities that might fit in your last post. But taken too far, the analogy is flawed. When you said, "Based on this model, if the real fight experience is analogous to playing in a game, The best NHL team/players would be the winners of the All Star Skills competition and not the winners of Lord Stanley's Cup.... doesn't work for me." Well, what doesn't work for me is your analogy. Individual "fight experience" is not analogous to "playing in a game" for this to even remotely fit, as the team element, controlled environment, and the fact that the players lives aren't on the line are elements in a game that makes it vastly different then a "real fight". Say what you want, but no matter how far you try to stretch the analogy, I don't think it will work.

I am comparing a 'fight' to a 'game' because they are the performance arenas that the unit has trained and prepared to perform in.

As I said before, the elements of the environment are reletively unchanged in a sports arena like hockey. This is not true for combat. You said that the officials could make different calls and such to try to prove your point, however, different officials or calls does not change the fundemental aspects of the environment. If the ice changed to concrete in areas of the arena, or if your opponent brandishes a knife or decides to take your head off with his stick, then THESE would be fundemental changes in environment. You don't have these in hockey...you do have these unexpected changes in combat.

combat and self defense are different, but combat DOES have rules that combatives (at least USA combatives) are expected to adhere to such as the laws of land warfare, geneva code, rules of engagement....

In self defense, there are state laws covering use of force/deadly force

These aren't really "rules" like in sports because in combat there aren't any refs to put my opponent in the penelty box for breaking them. State Law isn't going to prevent the criminal from stabbing me, no matter how loud I cry foul. If a cop asks a perp to show his hands, and the perp decides to point his gun, then that perp just changed the "rules." Rules in the sense of sport cannot be changed in the middle of the game.

Also, if I break the rules in sport, depending on how badly, I could lose the game. If I am boxing and I bite my opponents ear off, I lose. In combat, if I break the rules I could very well win.

The bottom line here is that there are no rules in combat, no matter how elequently you try to argue that there are. "State laws" and "geneva convention" are not REALLY rules because breaking these could result in a win rather then a loss, and there is no one to cry foul until after the battle is over. These are mere guidelines.

Guidelines in combat may be helpful, but rules will get you killed.

Now, in regards to training for combat, as Professor taught and as I have mentioned, your ability to "translate" or apply what you know is what will make your training worth while and effective. You can't simulate real combat, period, no matter how much you want to argue over how "close" your training can be. But, your ability to translate will allow you to apply your training. That is why "translating" is so important.

Now to the original arguement:

I think the original message, that I agree with, is that - all other things being equal - the fighter with real experience will have a deeper understanding relative to the person with no real experience.

Well if "all other things were equal" then I'd agree.

What I asked Kashino originally was "Is it possible for a person with a lot of training who, lets say, has never had to defend themselves to have a better understanding of the application of their art then someone who has had to defend themselves?"

He said no. Now, by putting the words "all other things being equal" then this is limiting your answer. I didn't say "all other things being equal." when I framed my question.

Now, through discussion he was able to agree with me that experience does not make or break fighting ability, which was my point.

My point on this subject has been, from the start, that experience is a factor, but does not make or break ability, and does not determine that you'll win your next self defense circumstance. Because of this, I think that it is overrated when people try to use their "experience" to make themselves credable.

So far, my point hasn't been shown to be wrong.

For fun, one more analogy: Our U.S. soldiers are fighting terrorists overseas. Some of these soldiers are 18 and 19 years old. Others not much older then their early 20's. Most have not seen real combat prior to going active duty. The terrorists on the other hand are much different. Many of them have been fighting in wars since they were children. Terrorist groups in the middle east clearly have more "fighting experience" then our soldiers. Yet, outside of superior technoligy, our "green" soldiers will smoke just about any terrorist group out there. Why...? Our soldiers are better trained!

 

[loki09789]

My post was for you, and any interested readers. If they are interested, they will read, if not they will skim/ignore. I do it too.

There are many points that you are ignoring in this response, but that is because you don't agree and are using the elements that you want to rebut... okay. You don't like the analogy, but I think it works if you can conceptualize it.

As far as the experience counts discussion:

Tim K wrote:
"Many haven't "been there or done that", and they have no credibility with regards to what works and what doesn't"

You replied:
"What it sounds like your basically saying is that you need to get into fights to see if your art is effective"

Tim replied:
"regardless of the "faith" someone has in their chosen system/art/whatever, you have a better appreciation of its effectiveness if you have tested it "under fire". "

You wrote:
"Is my interpretation of what your saying askew? Maybe, maybe not. I am not sure yet."
After he clarified and elaborated to make sure you knew what he did mean.

I think Tim K's position is entirely clear in response to your question:
"In short, no; provided that we're discussing two people of similar or equal techincal ability where one has has real fighting experience ant the other has not."

Training will only get you so far, and you cannot discount the value of experience."

"I do agree that it may not make or break a persons fighting ability. However, it does make a difference in the individual's development (omitted section)... which leads us back to the old saying that "it is not the art, but the man".

But you go on:
"This quote alone tells me that we are on the same page with this. Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessicity."

Based on these exchanges, I don't see Tim K agreeing with your point of view,and he also makes the limit of 'all things being equal' as part of his process as well as clarifying that experience is not or make or break factor.

I think Tim K and I agree on this issue but that you see things differently.

Analogies aside, I can't think of any trade/craft/profession where an academic will be discounted for his/her contribution. At the same time, though, I also can't think of a single such field where experience is NOT a very important element of the individual development.

As far as our troops overseas, technology/money is a HUGE factor in our military successes in any conflict. Man for man, Iragi resistance/ or the war on terror campaigns, our soldiers have a healthy respect for their particular enemy and their experience. Ask the 10th Mountain Infantrymen that were pinned down and taking heavy fire in Afg. Some of the unit leaders were vets of Somalia and Operation Just Cause (Noriega apprehension) leading well trained but green troops. They had a hell of a time and took some hard hits. Air support and radio communication saved the day for them.

Paul Martin

 

[Cruentus]

Analogies aside, I can't think of any trade/craft/profession where an academic will be discounted for his/her contribution. At the same time, though, I also can't think of a single such field where experience is NOT a very important element of the individual development.

And rightfully so, because there is no profession out there like combat.

I'll repeat myself: Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessicity.

So what portion of this statement do you disagree with, Paul M.?

PAUL

 

[loki09789]

I'll see your repeat and raise you a rant:

UH UH... YOUR WRONG!

I agree there is no profession the same as being a combative, after serving/training as a logistical support, combat support and a direct combat troop, I would have to agree on a personal satisfaction/challenge level.

Here we go...

But, I would disagree on the inability to make comparisons and analogies, understanding that none will be perfect fits.

Paul M.

 

[loki09789]

In the spirit of getting this thread back on track:

What about MA/FMA's makes it effective relative to other arts in your opinions?

Paul M.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by loki09789
I'll see your repeat and raise you a rant:

UH UH... YOUR WRONG!

I agree there is no profession the same as being a combative, after serving/training as a logistical support, combat support and a direct combat troop, I would have to agree on a personal satisfaction/challenge level.

Here we go...

But, I would disagree on the inability to make comparisons and analogies, understanding that none will be perfect fits.

Paul M.

O.K...

We agree that no profession compares to being in real combat. And btw, I am not talking about the military profession, but Combat in general. Regardless, I think we agree here.

We disagree regarding your hockey analogy, in that you think it fits, and I don't. This is fine, and we can agree to disagree on that one.

But what about this statement alone:

Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessecity.


How do you feel about that statement? If you disagree, then exactly what part do you disagree on?

This is where I am confused.

PAUL

 

[Tgace]

Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessecity.

I agree...but i would add... "Real world fighting however is a necessity when developing/advancing a fighting system, as the focus of any system of combat should be "combat effectiveness".

I think many (not all) "traditional" systems "froze" at some point of their combative history. Arts that were "cutting-edge" during their development stopped at some point...many became exercises or preservations of ancient times (like SCA or civil war re-enactors). If an art desires to be "alive" in a combat sense it has to keep up with modern weapons/tactics/developments. IMHO as always.

 

[loki09789]

Paul J.

We DO agree on no profession comparing to combat because combat is an event/experience and a profession is a vocation.

What we have been discussing has been the role of combat in the development of the fighter/individual.

In order to do that, Tim K, you, others and I have been comparing the relationship between fighter development and experience to the relationship of other human performance crafts/trades and experience to illustrate how experience is very important to individual development - period.

I said that nothing is LIKE combat based on my service/training NOT that we could not be compared.

"Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessecity."

You have two different things going on here when you ask this, which is why Tim K, myself and now Tom have answered in a Yes and No format.

Is real fighting experience the end all be all of fighter development, I don't think so.

Is it a necessity? Depending on your goal in fight training, yes. If you are training for the purpose of the perfect technical skill and the perfect understanding of your art, then no it isn't a necessity. But if you are training/developing with the purpose of applying your art or creating innovations, real experience is a necessity. Does that mean run out and get into a fight to see? NO.

Though Impirical evidence is the best for any scientific/artistic development. Thus, the difference between taking an art appreciation course and a sculpture class, or the difference between a survey of science and a chemistry class. In the first, your just taking the instructors word for it without doing it. In the second, you are really applying the instructors teaching to internalize the material. I know, in this analogy, they both are happening in an instructional setting... but analogies, by their nature are imperfect. The point is there none the less.

As I said before, seeking fights for personal tests is ridiculous and against any sound self defense training.

You could, more safely, piggy back off of other's experience by researching crime statistics, interviews with combat vets, ride alongs with LEO's, touring prisons/mental institutions.... to come as close to direct experience as you can, but it will never make up for actually being there.

Even taking a job as a security guard/bouncer/serviceman for a while could be seen as a way or a phase of your fighter development in a realistic, moral and socially acceptable way. You are not directly instigating/seeking fights, only moving closer to the application by getting into a trade where it comes with the job. At this point it goes from hobby/research/enthusiasm to a profession. In this professional setting, it becomes 'real' because it is a component of your profession and will influence 'real' acknowledgements of proficiency through promotions, pay, reputation as well as survivability.

As civilian/self defense artists, to quote myself:

"200 fights means your doing something wrong. For a combative, you would definitely have a wealth of experience that, while not automatically making you a great fighter, would influence your future training much more than no real experience. Otherwise, veterans of combat would not be so sought out for instructor/trainer positions for military units."

Paul M.

 

[Toasty]

Paul J. said
"Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessecity"

With all due respect Paul, I have to disagree with the part about it not being a neccesity.

If you are going to call yourself a "fighter" but have never been in fight - well that makes no sense at all. Thats kinda like saying I am a flyfisherman & I dont even own a fishing pole.

Also, I believe it is a neccesity in as much as you really have no idea 1) how all that stuff you have been practising in the controlled atmosphere of mutual training is going to work against someone who is actually trying to hurt you, very badly. And 2) this is the real important part I think, you dont know how you are gonna react when you get kicked in the groin & punched in the grill in the space of 1.2 seconds (and dont gimme the whole - "well I wouldnt let them get that close" or I wouldnt let it escalate that far" - sometimes you really dont have a choice in the matter).

Yes, you can learn & benefit from people and who have real world experience, but therein lies the a problem/difference - its all their experience - not yours.
Now I am not saying go out & start beating the crap out of people (or getting the crap beat out of you either. LOL ) . But perhaps get in the ring or octogon or a dogbrothers gathering (slightly different - but probably a good litmus of your skill) or what have have you, where you can test yourself. And even these are not going to be the same as real street fight.
Which, by the way I am pretty sure most people have never been in (and I'm not taking about the little punch fest in highschool most people call a street fight) - see Marc "Animal" Macyoungs's website regarding this.

anyway, just my opinion
with respect
Rob Perkins

 

[loki09789]

This quote might press the point better than I can:
Pappy Geo said:

"There are warriors that are the real thing like the Special Ops and then there are wanna bees. No matter how much I train, what my mind set is I am still a wanna bee."

Pappy Geo is making a separation between those who apply the fighting art, thereby gaining experience, and those who only train and 'get it' but don't have the experience.


Paul M

 

[loki09789]

This is what happens when the teacher turns a class over to a student teacher: Boredom and over posting.... I can't stop!

"Hi, my name is Paul and I am an over poster."

"HIIIIIIPAULLLLLLLL"

Here's a snip from Phil Elmores article about martial arts:

"Overwhelming an opponent with aggression, when done by a fighter who understands the principles of fighting and is skilled and experienced in their application, will always decide a violent altercation. It will also decide a violent altercation in favor of the assailant if the defending "martial" artist fails to grasp the importance of it."

Something to chew on.

Paul M

 

[Cruentus]

First off, let me disclaim that I myself have done some security work, and I have been in "real fights" and I was going to work at the OC jail before I got swooped up by a research team for my mental skills (drrrr :erg and now I am an investment banker.

So, I have no alternative motives for my conjecture here. I could claim real world experience just as rightfully as the next guy. I am not someone with no real world experience trying to argue a point out of envy because I have never had to use my skills. Furthermore, I think its childish and stupid to talk about all my bad@$$ 'street fighting' experience to try to give myself credability (as too many people do), so I generally don't. I would rather let my skill speak for itself.

Having said that, here's the deal...

IF you think it is nessecary for someone to have real fighting experience to truely have good combative skills, then you are promoting for others to seek out these experiences. In other words your promoting for others to get into fights. In other words (in case your a mental cripple and can't understand) your promoting violence.

That's the bottom line, folks. That's the REAL DEAL. I don't care if you disclaim it by saying, "I don't condone getting into fights." Your disclaimer is the equivelent of a parent telling a child that swearing is wrong, after rebuking them with a slew of F and S bombs.

This is a really important issue, guys. If I put "real world" experience on a pedistal that it doesn't belong, then I am promoting violence, plain and simple. You see, I have bled, and I have made others bleed. But if I use this to promote foolish ideas that your fighting skills will only "go so far" without real fighting experience, then what am I REALLY saying? It will be on my conscience and my soul as part of an ongoing problem if people seek violence; and frankly I'd rather it be me to face death then any of my collegues, teachers, or students.

Since I don't want to promote violence, I had to ask myself, "IS there another alternative?" And in fact, there is. Ask anyone who has seen real combat, or has had to really defend themselves. They will tell you that the first experience is unlike anything they have ever trained for. This was my experience as well. You have to deal with your own adrinaline, internal turmoil, and instincts that you have never had to deal with before. After that first one (or first couple for those who take longer to adjust), the internal struggle is over, which is the hardest thing to deal with, in my opinion. However, I found that even with the internal conflict of my first real encounter, because I trained to "RELAX" under pressure, and I learned to "TRANSLATE" what I know, I was still able to react accordingly, dispite my inner feelings.

After being in multiple encounters myself, and after listening to others who have been in much more encounters then I, I came to the realization that No violent encounter is identical! After this understanding, I was able to realize that being in a violent encounter, or being in multiple violent encounters, is not a nessecity to understand violent enounters, and is not nessecary in helping you be a better fighter. In the fly fishing example, the more you fly fish the better you'll be because you have a consistant environment, and a fairly consistant circumstance every time. There is not the same consistancy in combat, so you can't really build a solid learning base from it. Plus, one man can't have enough encounters to really build an effective fighting base that could be put into a martial system (without significant training and study outside real fighting).

So, I found the solution. This is the same solution that people like Remy Presas found, so it is nothing new! I can help build someones ability to handle real life encounters, without them having to be in a "real life" encounter themselves, and they will be just as effective, or even more effective as someone with a load of experience. First, I am training in martial arts that have been "combat proven" within the last century by my instructors, my instructors instructors, and many people that have been influenced by these combat systems. So I know that what I do has been "road tested," even if not by myself. Second, I can bring modern examples to the table by learning from FBI and police stats and reports, combat statistics and reports, and other peoples experience. I can learn from other people experience and mistakes without having to have been there done that. Third, AND THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT, I can learn and teach my students to TRANSLATE what they know to different circumstances. This way no matter how the dynamics of a violent encounter change, I can be prepared and I can still use what I know. And Fourth (and this is the hardest to teach) I can teach them to learn how to relax under pressure, and I can prepare them mentally and emotionally so if a violent encounter were to occur, they could handle their own internal turmoil.

This is the solution. I, as well as all of you can build competitent "fighters" (I don't like the word "fighters", but this is for lack of a better term) without promoting for them to go out and get into fights. I can learn myself, and build good fighters without promoting violence.

Now, I will disclose that I am not saying that "real world experience" has no value. It most certianly has, and for someone who has experience, they can add it to the mixing bowl of what they know and have learned. There are many poeple who have brought valuable lessons to the table from their real world experience. Yet, just because it can be valueable, that doesn't make it nessecary or even desirable.

I think Tgace's answer is the closest to my view. I do agree with him that the fighting system, or at least the methods you learn should have been "road tested" at some point. I just don't believe that myself or my students have to go out and road test these methods to be able to "truely understand" them.

So that's the real deal. If you believe that it is nessesary to get into violent scenarios to truely understand how to be a competitent "fighter" or to be competitent in surviving violent scenarios, then your promoting violence! That is a simple fact. Now I know what I say here goes against the grain of what is accepted by the martial arts or "combatives" community, so I know that I'll get disagreements. Personally, I don't give a flying F**k if the whole world disagrees with me on this one. I will stand behind my opinion on this, because I will learn/teach survival, I will learn/teach martial arts, but I will not promote violence.

Will you?

PAUL
:armed: