Pressure testing self-defence techniques

[kickcatcher]

[/i]


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.

It varys - in "peacekeeping" roles and counter-insurgency roles verbal negotiation and non-lethal force action can be vital to military operations, and British military training at least reflects that - Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq...

Having said that, we have to consider training approaches RELATIVE to the TARGET ACTIVITY - the specific training optimum for any activity varies, but the general approach of "pressure testing" carries across most physical activities (IMO).

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

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

ok


Your Brother
John

Positive or negative, you have still made an impression on someone, enough to stir them to action.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Positive or negative, you have still made an impression on someone, enough to stir them to action.

EXACTLY! (Don't forget that you said that.)

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

I never forget.
Wait, who are you again? Ross Perot right?

 

[Phil Elmore]

Too short. I was thinking Teddy Roosevelt. He had the pear-shaped physique, the glasses, the facial hair, and the itchy trigger finger.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Sadly, I can see it. Then again, I get compared to Kevin Smith alot......a real lot..... LOL

Ok, we're really tangenting here....lets drift back to topic.

 

[Hand Sword]

I still say that the pink panther movie way of testing is the best!

 

[RoninPimp]

Too short. I was thinking Teddy Roosevelt. He had the pear-shaped physique, the glasses, the facial hair, and the itchy trigger finger.

-He was also a combat athlete and would have been all about the "pressure testing".

 

[Rook]

Hmm this was and is an excellent thread.

I think alot of people missed Wing Chung Lawyer's point, which Kickcatcher restated himself - that the chart demostrates his personal approximation of various training activities to each other. Being closer to streetfighting means more realistic, but he never once said that it was the only way to train or that other training methods were useless. There are lots of ways to skin that cat, and most serious martial artists will, in training, uses low, medium and high levels of this.

Excellent chart and good thread.

 

[Phil Elmore]

His personal approximation is based on his speculation and is not grounded in any real understanding of the arts and systems about which he was commenting.

 

[frank raud]

His personal approximation is based on his speculation and is not grounded in any real understanding of the arts and systems about which he was commenting.

Could you do any better?

 

[Phil Elmore]

I routinely do.

 

[Andrew Green]

I routinely do.

I think that is a matter of opinion don't you?

 

[Phil Elmore]

Your opinion is a matter of opinion.

 

[Andrew Green]

Yes, I don't try to deny that though.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Yet you run around shrieking to anyone who'll listen that any opinion with which you disagree is, in fact, an opinion. I think you need to evaluate why you are so threatened by any assertion of belief that differs from you own. Instead of jumping up and down, pointing your fingers and whining, "That's an opinion! That's an opinion!" you could be substantively replying with a meaningful rebuttal.

 

[Andrew Green]

Go back up and have a read, see if you can figure out why I did.

I'll give you a hint:

"His personal approximation is based on his speculation and is not grounded in any real understanding of the arts and systems about which he was commenting."

Interesting claim, given that you do not know the poster or his knowledge base.

So it was asked:

"Could you do any better"

And responded to:

"I routinely do."

Now, having read both this threads initial post, and a few of your articles, I think it is rather safe to say that not everyone will agree that you have written better material. In fact, some might flat out disagree. So, blatently claiming that you write better, and have a better knowledge of the subject then the initial poster is not a fact as you stated it as, it is a opinion.

Me, I'm on the disagreeing side. While I don't fully agree with the initial post, I think it is quite well done and thought out and made more sense then much of your material.

 

[Phil Elmore]

An objective reader can easily see that I can, do, and have routinely written better material. Your personal agenda clouds your thinking and renders your opinion less than reasonable. I can give credit where credit is due, even if I do not like the person expressing the opinion. If "Kickcatcher" spent less time writing libelous cartoons (well illustrated but poorly scripted) and more time actually training in different martial styles, his speculation as to their efficacy would carry more weight -- at least among those of us capable of rational thought.

 

[Andrew Green]

I have a personal agenda? Sweet!

Any chance of you telling me what it is?

 

[frank raud]

I routinely do.

(quote+ Phil elmore)grounded in any real understanding of the arts and systems about which he was commenting.(/Quote)

So where does your real understanding of the arts and systems about which he was commenting on come from?