drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
The evidence is linage.
If ip man does it it is the evidence we need that it works.
If the navy SEALS do it it is the evidence we need that it works.
This is not really cause and effect.
Good arts for getting to your gun
- Thread starter skribs
- Start date
The evidence is linage.
If ip man does it it is the evidence we need that it works.
If the navy SEALS do it it is the evidence we need that it works.
This is not really cause and effect.
Juany118
Senior Master
Two things and I am done.
On the "shooting from grappling" issue. Those things are taught as an "oh sheot" issue. You never WANT to do it but circumstances may dictate.
As for evidence based vs lineage I don't think you understand what the quality industry systems are based on. It's the person (or persons) with extensive prior training and experience. BJJ, MMA, Boxing, Judo, plus (at least for the ones I trust) operational experience. They then sit down and figure out what was used most in their line of work. They then sit down and put it into a teachable system.
So these people aren't really inventing anything. Ultimately they are just paring down and codifying a curriculum on something that is evidence based. Tbh they are very similar to MMA but add things specifically regarding retaining or drawing weapons from evidence based arts like FMA because that is an additional factor operators need to address.
By paring down I mean the following. They may have few if any kicks because with all the gear an operator carries kicks above the knee aren't a good idea. They may focus on ground defense, but not attack because again with all the gear your goal may be to get up ASAP and stay there. In short they are, typically, designed for specific purposes/occupations BUT that design is done by people who can honestly say "been there, done that, got the T-shirt." They then "sell" their system. If it fails in the field they go out of business.
Now this isn't to say they are "perfect" bit it doesn't have to be "perfect" to work. So as to keep things separate I will continue in the next post.
On the "shooting from grappling" issue. Those things are taught as an "oh sheot" issue. You never WANT to do it but circumstances may dictate.
As for evidence based vs lineage I don't think you understand what the quality industry systems are based on. It's the person (or persons) with extensive prior training and experience. BJJ, MMA, Boxing, Judo, plus (at least for the ones I trust) operational experience. They then sit down and figure out what was used most in their line of work. They then sit down and put it into a teachable system.
So these people aren't really inventing anything. Ultimately they are just paring down and codifying a curriculum on something that is evidence based. Tbh they are very similar to MMA but add things specifically regarding retaining or drawing weapons from evidence based arts like FMA because that is an additional factor operators need to address.
By paring down I mean the following. They may have few if any kicks because with all the gear an operator carries kicks above the knee aren't a good idea. They may focus on ground defense, but not attack because again with all the gear your goal may be to get up ASAP and stay there. In short they are, typically, designed for specific purposes/occupations BUT that design is done by people who can honestly say "been there, done that, got the T-shirt." They then "sell" their system. If it fails in the field they go out of business.
Now this isn't to say they are "perfect" bit it doesn't have to be "perfect" to work. So as to keep things separate I will continue in the next post.
Nobody ever said that was impossible.
Juany118
Senior Master
First by "perfect" I meant best/better. I got moved to a new squad recently. On it I have a BJJ guy, a Nationally ranked wrestler (from College) and an Krav Maga instructor guy. We were talking shop, we were doing baton recert anyway, and they asked why I decided on my school. I told them the big reason was the Kali and I mentioned knife defense. Both the BJJ guy and the KM guy said "we have that". So we decided to do some light sparring with closed batons as the knife. Both had decent knife defense but I still hit them more and they barely touched me. Why? Not because BJJ or KM have bad knife defense, they we're both pretty good, it's just that as Kali is aa weapon based art I simply know how to attack and defend better BUT they work too.
Now on the flip side, in straight up ground fight, since it's been way too long since my Aikido days the BJJ or wrestler would take me but there is grappling in both my Kali and WC so they would know they were in a fight when we are done, even if they won.
The same dynamic applies to the proven industry systems. In the end they all "work" for the intended purpose, even if they aren't the ""perfect" option and the purpose of these systems is to train people who will then practice but not attend formal classes on a daily/weekly basis.
I will say that is the one weakness of the "industry" systems. If you don't practice you will lose the skills. A formal school/gym where you pay a monthly fee basically forces you to practice. Industry training puts the responsibility of practice entirely on the student after they are done.
Now on the flip side, in straight up ground fight, since it's been way too long since my Aikido days the BJJ or wrestler would take me but there is grappling in both my Kali and WC so they would know they were in a fight when we are done, even if they won.
The same dynamic applies to the proven industry systems. In the end they all "work" for the intended purpose, even if they aren't the ""perfect" option and the purpose of these systems is to train people who will then practice but not attend formal classes on a daily/weekly basis.
I will say that is the one weakness of the "industry" systems. If you don't practice you will lose the skills. A formal school/gym where you pay a monthly fee basically forces you to practice. Industry training puts the responsibility of practice entirely on the student after they are done.
Juany118
Senior Master
What made that even more odd is that SOCP is an "Industry Program" that was designed for the US Army, particularly the Rangers. So I am confused. He is using an industry program to show industry programs don't work? Is he trying to say SOCP sucks too? So again the US Armed forces are clueless? Very confused since when he does this there is no context, almost intentionally so he can go any way he wants... Which=poser as someone else previously stated.
That said the system is highly functional for military application, and this thread actually. It's primarily about creating the amount of space needed to deploy a "tool". M-4, pistol, knife, whatever (of course gun > melee.)
Last edited:
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
What was said.
"Your theory doesn't comport with any of the stuff I've learned from my LEO friends. Because you've written several things in this thread which shows your lack of basic understanding on the basic concepts and principles of modern "gun fighting," and because your "theory" directly disagrees with what my cop pals tell me, I reject your "theory" and encourage you to do so as well."
Not far off impossible.
Let's suggest not accepted method.
Last edited:
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Just pointing out that people are training that method. When apparently people do not train that method.
Otherwise like evey other system it would have to stand on its own merits.
It wasn't a commentary on whether the system is legitimate or not.
Juany118
Senior Master
That wasn't what was said at all. What was said was...
Organizations wouldn't teach crap if it didn't work because their training is based on the the info from "the best". So if from the 1980s to 1998 the SEAL operators said "SCARS sucks and is getting us hurt and killed" the Navy would have cancelled it saying g "it doesn't work." instead the Navy phased it out saying "it takes people out of the field for too long to learn it."
I get it, you can't acknowledge you are wrong, that either means stubborn as hell or poser as Kirk said. Don't know, don't care at this point.
Juany118
Senior Master
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
So what happened to it is good because the seals do it?
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Obviously not.
Juany118
Senior Master
Lol. You really have gotten desperate haven't you. It's not "at some time, at some point, some group trained it". It's that said group USED it for over a decade and only stopped doing so when the hirer ups got pissy that manpower got diverted from deployment because of an extended training cycle. That that group (SEALS) still teach the pricniples and other groups still teach it all.
I really think it's time to stop this debate. I know you think debates need to end with a winner, but once you realize they don't, it will be happier for everyone. Especially since you contradicted yourself by basically saying "industry training sucks" but then more than once tried to defend that by showing videos of industry training that you apparently thought worked.
Last edited:
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Not really. Industry training of itself I have no faith in.
That is one specific argument.
Trying to pull out a gun mid grapple won't work because there is son sort of mystery only industry people know is another.
So I can argue both points separately without that contradiction.
And the argue the merits of my idea based purely on technique. Which if I wasn't talking to people who weigh evidence by the strangest standards would be where this conversation would have gone.
Otherwise having one poster start screaming at me like a six year old and the other simply not able to tell bad training when he sees it. It is a conversation that that has become increasingly difficult.
Now if that is an indication of the process in which people in the industry evaluate industry training I can see why it is in the mess it is.
And we did get to hear from two SEALS who have a different opinion as to why SEALs training has evolved.
From most of the LEO I've trained with, this was the reason they took classes. They liked the training they got, but it was necessarily limited in scope, and they didn't have ongoing practice. The same would hold true for a BJJ training session that lasted 40 hours and didn't repeat.
Nothing in that suggests "impossible". "Inadvisable", sure.
He's dragging you back and forth between his two different arguments. He does that when the logic piles up against one - he oscillates to keep you from focusing on one. A good way to fight, a bad way to discuss and debate if you intend to learn.
Here again, you're not actually responding to an argument made. Nobody said it was impossible or wouldn't work. They said it was more dangerous than leaving the firearm holstered, unless there's not a viable alternative.
You like things to be absolute (like industry training is all crap). Most things are not. There are times when drawing while grappling is the best available option. There certainly have been crap training in industry settings. But that doesn't make your absolutist arguments correct, so showing individual instances of either (and I'm not sure you've even done that) doesn't really support your point effectively.
lklawson
Grandmaster
No. I mean you've given up actually trying to support your points and are flat out into trolling.
Psychological projection - Wikipedia
Juany118
Senior Master
Hi
To use a completely non-violent analogy, if Gore Tex didn't work everyone would dump it for eVent of Sympatex because people know when they are wet. Similarly an operator knows when his training failed. The civilian won't know however because they usually, again lucky for them, don't get the opportunity to test that training.
The last part is the main issue. Does some industry training suck? Absolutely!!! The thing is industry training is a business. It can survive for far too long in the civilian self-defense world because there is, luckily, seldom an opportunity to put it to a true test. That isn't the same for the Military/security forces (read LE) world though. There the systems and testing get tested. If they don't work they go the way of the dodo, not unlike equipment that fails to perform in the field.
To use a completely non-violent analogy, if Gore Tex didn't work everyone would dump it for eVent of Sympatex because people know when they are wet. Similarly an operator knows when his training failed. The civilian won't know however because they usually, again lucky for them, don't get the opportunity to test that training.
Pressure testing is what they are talking about here and pressure testing is essential. It is not the end all be all that some people make it out to be but you must have some pressure testing in what you do to ensure effectiveness. I would hope that anyone teaching how to draw their handgun, etc. would pressure test their method against a resisting opponent to ensure it is effective.
