Pressure testing self-defence techniques

[WingChun Lawyer]

The same way I "pressure test" anything else, insofar as it is possible. I describe it here.

Regarding unarmed combat, the drills you referred to on that article of yours do not carry a significant element of risk, or even of simulation of risk, compared to actual hard sparring. What you described are inferior methods of pressure testing unarmed techniques, nothing more.

That´s all there is in your article about unarmed combat, even though it IS a long article.

In fact, I remembered an old saying from the brazilian judiciary system: "A petitioner´s actual right is inversely proportional to the number of pages used for the petition".

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

I sit here and watch this debate go round and round like a twisty turny sort of thing, and wonder. Truly, there are some dizzying intellects at work here.

Competition has little to no part of Self Defense. Competition is just that, competition. It is not life or death, *** on the line, lose and go home in a bag. Self Defense however is. No part of real self defense deals with scoring points or going home friends. It's making it home alive, preferably intact.

Playing paddy cake tap tap on a nice padded mat, wearing cushy padded gloves one on one is a game. You may get hurt, you may break bones and bleed, but it is as close to self defense as the last midget match on Monday Night Raw.

The topic here said "self defense", so anyone talking from the "sport" side of things, or the comfort of a nice air conditioned "dojo" is barking mad. And I know barking mad when I see it. Wibble.

The only way to pressure test them is to use them. You pass the test when you make it home. You fail it when you end up on a table with some old guy poking at your guts commenting on the quality of your liver spots.

How do I test mine? Simple. I use every ounce of my wit, my cunning and my intelligence to outwit, confuse, mislead and out maneuver my opponents. I use the principles of sages past, and the techniques of those who have gone before me. Might mean some "modern", some "ancient". Maybe I'm a traditionalist, maybe I do what you call MMA. Doesn't matter. What works for me, won't work for you as our situations will be different, as will our reactions and responses.

You want to beat each others brains out under some made up rules, be my guest. You want to play modern day Rambo and exterminate the homeless, go ahead and make their day. Either way, it’s not real. If you want to lie to yourself and think that, go right ahead. The morgue is full of over confident warriors and heroes.

 

[WingChun Lawyer]

Edmund, ALL training of techniques useful for violence involves a compromise between safety and reality, this cannot be argued with.

The question is how much are you willing to risk to achieve a more realistic level of training, and how honest do you want to be regarding the inadequacy of your training - because, as you so rightfully said, all training carries a baggage of inadequacy.

Compromise and honesty are the key issues here. All else, as I see it, is splitting hairs.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

That's just it. You can't achieve a "realistic" level. Even the military doesn't get 100% realism, nor perfection. If they did, there wouldn't be so many flags at half mast right now. If they can't get it, what make anyone with an ounce of intelligence think that 2 morons bashing at each other wearing hockey masks and bits of furniture somehow makes it more "real"?

You want "real", take a walk on the wild side and put your life up for grabs. Anything else is a lie. The old masters that some look down their "modern" noses at did just that, and lived or died as a result of their knowledge and ability. Anything else, is just playing games for ego points.

 

[kickcatcher]

The same way I "pressure test" anything else, insofar as it is possible. I describe it here.

That doesn't describe how you pressure test your methods, just gives a load of excuses why you don't. Are we to take it that you don't pressure test anything that you sell?

 

[RoninPimp]

Despite Phil's cop out by refusing to answer simple questions directly on the unlocked thread we are actually dicussing this on, I read his post/article/rant/thesaurus explosion he linked. He said this...

Sport methodology is inherently unrealistic because it transforms the asymmetrical goal of pragmatic self-defense into the symmetrical goal of winning the match between two people.

-You are fundamentaly wrong here. The "sport methodology" or pressure testing is in no way limited to just 2 people. At least in training.

Phil also said this...

You see, the dirty little secret, the one no one seems to want to acknowledge, is that all self-defense training involves an element of theory.

-You are confused on scientific teminology. The problem with way too many MA techniques is that they never make it past the hypothetical stage to become good theory. In the scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis. Then, YOU TEST IT. Then you us that data to develop a theory. Test results that don't support your hypothesis force you to change your hypothesis and re-test.

An example is this. A TMA guy sparring a boxer. His hypothesis is that his reverse punch rules. After eating round after round of leather he decides he's better off with the 4 basic punches of boxing. His hypothesis was wrong.

Another example. A SOMBO coach in Soviet Russia decides that their SOMBO techniques will work just fine in Judo competitions. Soviet Somboists competing in international Judo have done great. His hypothesis becomes sound theory. (an oversimplification of Sombo/Judo competition history I know)

Theory is about as best you can do in science, as its always changable when new evidence comes to light. Un pressure tested or sport methedology tested MA techniques are NOT theory they are hypothetical. There is no reason to keep MA's in the hypothetical realm in the 21st century.

Edmund, Are you arguing against all training then?

 

[WingChun Lawyer]

1) That's just it. You can't achieve a "realistic" level. Even the military doesn't get 100% realism, nor perfection. If they did, there wouldn't be so many flags at half mast right now. If they can't get it, what make anyone with an ounce of intelligence think that 2 morons bashing at each other wearing hockey masks and bits of furniture somehow makes it more "real"?

2) You want "real", take a walk on the wild side and put your life up for grabs. Anything else is a lie. The old masters that some look down their "modern" noses at did just that, and lived or died as a result of their knowledge and ability. Anything else, is just playing games for ego points.

1) True. And to be fair, some MMA practitioners do have this "if it doesn´t work in the ring it´s not worthwhile" mentality, which is, of course, a sign of ignorance, no question.

2) Now, I partially disagree with you on that. The way you write, it looks as if all training, by virtue of its imperfection, is ultimately futile! I am not sure if that is what you mean, but I disagree with that point of view.

I believe that, even though all training is, ultimately, imperfect, there are degrees of imperfection, there are compromises that need to be made and others that can be ignored in the interests of a better training.

I do not believe it is a waste of time to discuss training regimes because, by the end of the day, there ARE good and bad training methods; if you are not a wandering samurai, you can still achieve a measure of skill, and there are good and bad ways of doing that.

It is all nice and dandy to say it is not the art, it´s the person, but ultimately martial arts are measured and characterized by their training methods. Which means there are good and better martial arts.

That, of course, is my humble opinion. But I do believe there is more than a bit of truth in what I said.

 

[RoninPimp]

Double post. Sorry for the itchy trigger finger.

 

[RoninPimp]

Why did this thread die? It must be because I'm correct and everybody agrees with me right???

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Ok, i know none of you know me from Adam yet, but here is my two cents on pressure testing. The thing that is hard to replicate in training is the amount of stress you are under. So, taking a page from my days in Ranger School, increase the stress levels. Stay up for 20-24 hours, have only one meal during that time. Run a couple miles hard and fast. Do a crap load of pushups and situps. Then do some self defense drills as realistically as possible, with good hard resistance. You can't have the stress of a real attack, but you can get it a lot higher than most people think. Just add other stressors. They don't have to be directly related to the "attack".

Just my thoughts and techniques on the matter. Never did the stay up all night and only one meal for SD practice, have done the rest though.

 

[Brother John]

Phil, you continue to ignore legitimate questions. Why?


-No it's not. "Pressure Testing" would be running a tactical shooting course with simunations or airsoft equipment to use on real live training partners.

But: a tactical shooting course has NO resistance and NO contact...which according to the position of the original post....means it's about as useful for preparing for combat as jumping jacks. It wouldn't be pressure testing, according to that graph.

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

Ok, i know none of you know me from Adam yet, but here is my two cents on pressure testing. The thing that is hard to replicate in training is the amount of stress you are under. So, taking a page from my days in Ranger School, increase the stress levels. Stay up for 20-24 hours, have only one meal during that time. Run a couple miles hard and fast. Do a crap load of pushups and situps. Then do some self defense drills as realistically as possible, with good hard resistance. You can't have the stress of a real attack, but you can get it a lot higher than most people think. Just add other stressors. They don't have to be directly related to the "attack".

Just my thoughts and techniques on the matter. Never did the stay up all night and only one meal for SD practice, have done the rest though.

Agreed!
Good post...

and welcome to Martial Talk!! ((PS: I'm not Adam, I'm John....Adam has more hair...))

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

Why did this thread die? It must be because I'm correct and everybody agrees with me right???

NO

I don't think it 'died', just slowed.
A reduction from 20 posts a day to just 5 or 6 a day is still a Very active thread.
I think that the DEAD HORSE element is what's slowing it though.


Your Brother
John

 

[RoninPimp]

But: a tactical shooting course has NO resistance and NO contact...which according to the position of the original post....means it's about as useful for preparing for combat as jumping jacks. It wouldn't be pressure testing, according to that graph.

Your Brother
John

-I disagree. It depends on context. It also would depend on how you set up the course. If it was force on force with "bad guys" shooting back you, then you would have resistance as it applies to firearms. If you were doing very close quarter work, you could have actual physical contact. Ideally the only contact would be your rounds impacting on the "bad guys".

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Thanks Brother John. I'm glad I found this place, seem to be some good, knowledgable people here. Have already learned quite a bit in just a couple of days.

 

[kickcatcher]

But: a tactical shooting course has NO resistance and NO contact...which according to the position of the original post....means it's about as useful for preparing for combat as jumping jacks. It wouldn't be pressure testing, according to that graph.

Your Brother
John

That’s an interesting example – many weapons courses such as tactical firearms often do not even remotely approach the target activity in terms of pressure, thus the step-up is massive. It’s a compromise of safety – just like unarmed combat pressure testing, except the threshold is inherently far lower.

However, it is foolish to conclude that these low-pressure (/unrealistic) tactical firearms courses are inherently effective in teaching optimum firearms capability. There are two obvious factors at play:
1. The applied skill needed to be ‘effective’ when you have a firearm is far lower than unarmed.
2. The general level of competency in applied firearms use is pretty low, even amongst enthusiasts (strong suspicion on my part, you may disagree. There are some military studies which suggest that is likely though).

HOWEVER, to extend your analogy of firearms courses, let’s look at military training as it relates to “pressure testing”. Using the British army (with which I am more familiar), soldiers put in far more time on basic skills than their LE counterparts –Things like range practice, tactical movement, dry runs of basic squad attacks etc – these are the equivalent of padwork, kihon and non-contact sparring etc in MA. They are low pressure support training.

The military then increase the pressure to include play battle using blank ammunition. This includes additional pressures to make it more realistic – sleep deprivation, water rationing, house clearing in urban areas etc – things to put the soldier under more pressure. In MA parlance this is training with medium pressure.

But that’s not enough, not close enough to the ‘reality’ of combat for the Army. They up the pressure by advancing with live rounds whizzing over the soldiers’ head so that they get some mental conditioning against incoming fire. This is akin to the basic “pressure testing” I advocate in MA.

Then you have the elite guys like the SAS. They push it further SO THAT THEY BECOME BETTER. They training in the “killing house” using live ammunition, they push everything further – they still work safe, but compared to the low-pressure tactical gun course you mentioned, they are training on a different level of realism.

The evidence that the (British) military’s drive towards realistic training is a deciding factor when it comes to doing their target activity (war fighting) is very strong. The Falklands war is a very clear cut example.

Now I can’t talk for the SAS, but I am pretty sure if you asked them if the low-pressure gun course is good preparation for actually using firearms, they’d think it was inadequate.

Bearing all this in mind, I do not think that unrealistic tactical gun courses are a very strong counter-argument against pressure testing.

 

[Brother John]

Using the British army (with which I am more familiar), soldiers put in far more time on basic skills than their LE counterparts –Things like range practice, tactical movement, dry runs of basic squad attacks etc

I'm really not very familiar with the UK side of things on this, I'll just have to take your word for it, and I'm OK with that.

Here in the USA, I'd have to say that this is true...unless you get into special teams or groups like the ATF, FBI (and appendant bodies) and especially the SWAT teams angle. These folks probably end up accumulating MORE time on these things....over the years....than our military brothers and sisters do. Another thing to consider ((again....I can only speak for what I'm familiar with..the USA)) is the fact that MOST of the members of thse special teams that I mention are themselves Military veterans...so they end up with Both trainings. Just another considerartion.

Actually KickCatcher, I find many of your arguments very persuasive... especially this last one. (tried to give you a positive rep point, but I have to wait a while until the other, negative, one has been there for a while...) Maybe I don't agree 100%, and I'm never FOR trying to "Graph" or quantify non-material/insubstantial things, nor do I think that the "Usefulness" of a martial arts practice can be determined by the level of contact and resistance ((Though....those MUST be important considerations....I don't think they are 'stand-alone' criteria))...but I think that this is a very useful discussion that's come of all of this.
SO....until I get clearence to give you a positive rep point......
Kudos! (if for nothing else....for sticking to your guns. Obviously you value training ...and arguing... against resistance)

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

NO

I don't think it 'died', just slowed.
A reduction from 20 posts a day to just 5 or 6 a day is still a Very active thread.
I think that the DEAD HORSE element is what's slowing it though.


Your Brother
John

of all the things I've said on here....
THIS one gets me a negative rep-point??

ok


Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

Originally Posted by kickcatcher

Using the British army (with which I am more familiar), soldiers put in far more time on basic skills than their LE counterparts –Things like range practice, tactical movement, dry runs of basic squad attacks etc

Just thought of something else about this as well...


((((don't know why...but I can't get "Italics" off.........strange!))))
The training of the LEO and the Military personnel differs because their objectives are different. I'd imagine that along with your statement being true (generally) that also an LEO would get more verbal based skills training, tactics to pursuade and take command of a situation without NEEDING violence. The Military (w/the exception of MP, of course) would have little to no need for such skills as verbal deescalation or the use of restraints.... as the primary purpose of an LEO is to "Protect and serve" while the primary objective (quite crudely and bluntly put) of the military personnel is to "Kill people and break things"...as fast and definitively as possible.

Just an observation.
Your Brother
John

 

[Xue Sheng]

of all the things I've said on here....
THIS one gets me a negative rep-point??

ok


Your Brother
John

I wouldn't worry about it; occasionally you get these things for being right.

[/i]

Just thought of something else about this as well...


((((don't know why...but I can't get "Italics" off.........strange!))))
The training of the LEO and the Military personnel differs because their objectives are different. I'd imagine that along with your statement being true (generally) that also an LEO would get more verbal based skills training, tactics to pursuade and take command of a situation without NEEDING violence. The Military (w/the exception of MP, of course) would have little to no need for such skills as verbal deescalation or the use of restraints.... as the primary purpose of an LEO is to "Protect and serve" while the primary objective (quite crudely and bluntly put) of the military personnel is to "Kill people and break things"...as fast and definitively as possible.

Just an observation.
Your Brother
John

agreed