RBSD And TMAs: Does One Prepare You Better Than The Other?

[MJS]

The question is right in the title of this thread!:ultracool

Do you feel that the Reality Based arts teach in a more effective manner than a TMA? For reference purposes, the RBSD arts would fall into the category of folks like Tony Blauer, Peyton Quinn, Marc "Animal" MacYoung, and arts such as Krav Maga. Your TMAs are: TKD, Kenpo, Shotokan, etc.

We have a great mixture of people here on Martial Talk, so I'm hoping we'll get some good debating!

 

[newGuy12]

I know if the Aikidoka gets too "real", someone is going to get their arm ripped off. Some martial arts don't lend themselves very well too full out fighting (in practice), too many people would get hurt too bad. You can't very well practice it as one would practice, say, krav-maga. Even if you put on the "red man suit", someone STILL gets their arm ripped out of socket.

 

[KenpoTex]

The question is right in the title of this thread!:ultracool

Do you feel that the Reality Based arts teach in a more effective manner than a TMA? For reference purposes, the RBSD arts would fall into the category of folks like Tony Blauer, Peyton Quinn, Marc "Animal" MacYoung, and arts such as Krav Maga. Your TMAs are: TKD, Kenpo, Shotokan, etc.

We have a great mixture of people here on Martial Talk, so I'm hoping we'll get some good debating!

There is no doubt in my mind that the RBSD styles/programs do a better job of preparing someone for a "real life" fight (obviously, even within the RBSD realm, some are better than others).



Several reasons for this are:

• It seems that RBSD practicioners typically train with a higher level of resistance and less "cooperative energy" than the TMAs.
• They also tend to focus on a handful of simple, gross motor-skill strikes instead of complex, task specific tools.
• They tend to promote the idea of "one tool for many jobs" (for example: Blauer's SPEAR, etc.) as opposed to "a tool for each job"
• There is usually less bias against the use of modern weapons unlike TMAs where there is still a lot of "these are my weapons, my empty hands" crap (as if carrying weapons and/or using the best tool for the job is somehow unfair or dishonorable ).
• For the most part, the weapons defense material is more tactically sound and designed against attack-energy that is more "true to life" than much of the weapons defense found in TMAs (for example, AFAIC, the gun and knife defenses in the Kenpo system range from overly-optimistic to suicidal).
• Mindset, this is the big one for me. The RBSD programs tend to focus more on the combative or warrior mindset...the "get the job as quickly and efficiently as possible no matter what it takes" kind of attitude. They also seem to spend more time focusing on pre-fight (threat recognition, avoidance, unknown-contact management, etc.) and post fight (procedures for dealing with the aftermath, legal issues, etc.) than many of the TMA programs.

I think Kelly McCann sumarized it best when he said: "Martial-arts is something you do with someone, combatives is something you do to someone."

Just my $0.02

 

[bowser666]

I do not think that one has an advantage over the other. it all depends on the student and the level of training they get. The point of any style, or RBSD is to make the responses instinctive. That can happen in either system. SO you can't say that one is better than the other as I have seen ( and currently practice) a CMA that encourages resistance as real as someone on the street would give. No point in doing things half speed because that is not going to happen in the street.

Even though that seems to be the claim to fame for almost all RBSD systems ( We have elimnated the cumbersome TMA techniques that don't work blah blah blah ) You all know what I am talknig about. TMA have been aroudn for along time and have been effective for a long time, RSBD are typically jsut diluted TMA anyways. Not knocking them , but don't knock TMA either as they have been proven effective. RBSD are the ones that have something to prove.

 

[jks9199]

I do not think that one has an advantage over the other. it all depends on the student and the level of training they get. The point of any style, or RBSD is to make the responses instinctive. That can happen in either system. SO you can't say that one is better than the other as I have seen ( and currently practice) a CMA that encourages resistance as real as someone on the street would give. No point in doing things half speed because that is not going to happen in the street.

Even though that seems to be the claim to fame for almost all RBSD systems ( We have elimnated the cumbersome TMA techniques that don't work blah blah blah ) You all know what I am talknig about. TMA have been aroudn for along time and have been effective for a long time, RSBD are typically jsut diluted TMA anyways. Not knocking them , but don't knock TMA either as they have been proven effective. RBSD are the ones that have something to prove.

It's not what you train -- but how you train.

With that said -- many of the current RBSD approaches will give you effective self defense skills more rapidly, and include stress innoculation/scenario type training that will prepare you better to use the skills you're learning than the first year or more of more traditional training. What they lack is the depth and systemization of more traditional arts.

The best approach in my opinion is to balance reality based training with other training. Incorporate resistant partners, scenarios, and other aspects of reality based training while learning the more in-depth principles and elements that will let you be more efficient.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

It's not what you train -- but how you train.

With that said -- many of the current RBSD approaches will give you effective self defense skills more rapidly, and include stress innoculation/scenario type training that will prepare you better to use the skills you're learning than the first year or more of more traditional training. What they lack is the depth and systemization of more traditional arts.

The best approach in my opinion is to balance reality based training with other training. Incorporate resistant partners, scenarios, and other aspects of reality based training while learning the more in-depth principles and elements that will let you be more efficient.

Great point jks9199 and I could not agree more.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

Even though that seems to be the claim to fame for almost all RBSD systems ( We have elimnated the cumbersome TMA techniques that don't work blah blah blah ) You all know what I am talknig about. TMA have been aroudn for along time and have been effective for a long time, RSBD are typically jsut diluted TMA anyways. Not knocking them , but don't knock TMA either as they have been proven effective. RBSD are the ones that have something to prove.

To be honest, I don't really think that carries much weight as a defence of TMA. Im not knocking TMA here, Ive seen them used quite effectively when trained well. However claiming that because they were effective at one point in time they should also be effective today seems flawed to me. It relies on the assumption that the modern student is training in the same methods, environment, atmosphere and level of instruction as the older student was. Which quite frankly, we know off the bat isn;t true with alot of places. How many modern karate dojo's with point sparring and musical kata bear a resemblance to training under Funakoshi in Okinawa?
How many traditional jujitsu dojos students are going out on the battlefield near constantly?
How many ninjitsu students have actually worked as spies or assasins?

 

[bowser666]

To be honest, I don't really think that carries much weight as a defence of TMA. Im not knocking TMA here, Ive seen them used quite effectively when trained well. However claiming that because they were effective at one point in time they should also be effective today seems flawed to me. It relies on the assumption that the modern student is training in the same methods, environment, atmosphere and level of instruction as the older student was. Which quite frankly, we know off the bat isn;t true with alot of places. How many modern karate dojo's with point sparring and musical kata bear a resemblance to training under Funakoshi in Okinawa?
How many traditional jujitsu dojos students are going out on the battlefield near constantly?
How many ninjitsu students have actually worked as spies or assasins?

The point i am maknig is that it seems that all RBSD systems today do nothing but knock TMA , and call them useless and archaic. Its all basically branding for them, thats what they want you to think. Thus buy their product etc...... Nowadays there is a big push for RSBD and there are so many of them that are coming out now. In another few years there is going to be so many Mc RSBD's that your head is gonna spin. RSBD wouldn't exist without TMA. That is all I am saying. and Like somoene mentioned before it is not what you train it is how you train. One isn't better than the other. It is just IMO that RSBD lack teh system and structure of TMA and those are needed in training. It is part of the journey. RSBD systems make it sound almost like the Matrix. You plug in and within hours you are capable of defending yourself which is a crock.


You needs years of training to make it a instinctive response and that isn't going to happen in any style in 6 months. RBSD , TMA or not. Why do you think TMA's have been aroudn for so long. RBSD are just a flash in the pan. Sorry if I seem vehement but I obviously am a TMA supporter. Those guys in RBSD are not re-inventing the wheel as much as they think they are.

 

[jks9199]

The point i am maknig is that it seems that all RBSD systems today do nothing but knock TMA , and call them useless and archaic. Its all basically branding for them, thats what they want you to think. Thus buy their product etc...... Nowadays there is a big push for RSBD and there are so many of them that are coming out now. In another few years there is going to be so many Mc RSBD's that your head is gonna spin. RSBD would exist with TMA. That is all I am saying. and Like somoene mentioned before it is not what you train it is how you train. One isn't better than the other. It is just IMO that RSBD lack teh system and structure of TMA and those are needed in training. It is part of the journey. RSBD systems make it sound almost like the Matrix. You plug in and within hours you are capable of defending yourself which is a crock.


You needs years of training to make it a instinctive response and that isn't going to happen in any style in 6 months. RBSD , TMA or not. Why do you think TMA's have been aroudn for so long. RBSD are just a flash in the pan. Sorry if I seem vehement but I obviously am a TMA supporter. Those guys in RBSD are not re-inventing the wheel as much as they think they are.

That's unfair to Peyton Quinn, at the very least. He's never knocked traditional martial arts, only presented a method of training that incorporates adrenal stress.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

The point i am maknig is that it seems that all RBSD systems today do nothing but knock TMA , and call them useless and archaic. Its all basically branding for them, thats what they want you to think. Thus buy their product etc...... Nowadays there is a big push for RSBD and there are so many of them that are coming out now. In another few years there is going to be so many Mc RSBD's that your head is gonna spin. RSBD would exist with TMA. That is all I am saying. and Like somoene mentioned before it is not what you train it is how you train. One isn't better than the other. It is just IMO that RSBD lack teh system and structure of TMA and those are needed in training. It is part of the journey. RSBD systems make it sound almost like the Matrix. You plug in and within hours you are capable of defending yourself which is a crock.


You needs years of training to make it a instinctive response and that isn't going to happen in any style in 6 months. RBSD , TMA or not. Why do you think TMA's have been aroudn for so long. RBSD are just a flash in the pan. Sorry if I seem vehement but I obviously am a TMA supporter. Those guys in RBSD are not re-inventing the wheel as much as they think they are.

Oh I know what you mean about about the marketing, and to be honest all marketing within martial arts makes me a little nauseous. Im just objecting to the point of TMA being proved effective simply by the passage of time. I think martial arts require a little bit more pressure testing than that
And Im aware of quite a few TMA practioners that hold up perfectly fine under pressure testing. Im only objecting to the point regarding TMA effective based on time. I consider it to be a type of marketing as well

 

[Jenna]

The question is right in the title of this thread!:ultracool

Do you feel that the Reality Based arts teach in a more effective manner than a TMA? For reference purposes, the RBSD arts would fall into the category of folks like Tony Blauer, Peyton Quinn, Marc "Animal" MacYoung, and arts such as Krav Maga. Your TMAs are: TKD, Kenpo, Shotokan, etc.

We have a great mixture of people here on Martial Talk, so I'm hoping we'll get some good debating!

I think any "new system" practitioner who is in any way snobbish or presents a condescending disposition towards the traditional arts is looking at their own defence in too insular a fashion. The same I might say goes for the TMA practitioners who believe tried-and-tested = infallible.. I think, as in most things, balance is key.

In my own group (we are all aikidoka) we have adopted extra techniques and train as many "real" scenarios as we can think. We are not strict TMA but TMA with extra sprinkles maybe. I think there is a great deal more to the TMAs than new systems often give credit for. And to disregard years of wisdom for a one-shot kill I think suggests a lack of understanding. Personally I feel that reality based systems can offer a fantastic programme for personal defence. I think however that TMAs offer a fantastic set of principles for living. I like reality systems as an evolution of a TMA and not as it's supposed successor. I also like to add extra value to my Aikido so I know it will work off-script

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[bowser666]

Oh I know what you mean about about the marketing, and to be honest all marketing within martial arts makes me a little nauseous. Im just objecting to the point of TMA being proved effective simply by the passage of time. I think martial arts require a little bit more pressure testing than that
And Im aware of quite a few TMA practioners that hold up perfectly fine under pressure testing. Im only objecting to the point regarding TMA effective based on time. I consider it to be a type of marketing as well

I hear what you are saying about pressure testing. All I can say is look into the history of soem TMA's , Kung Fu and Tae Kwon do for example. Many of these styles were created solely for the purpose of self defense against invading governments etc....... They were created because there lives depended on it. TO me that is the most extreme of pressure testing LOL. I do see your point though about marketing.

TMA is in the background in regards to mainstream America, with MMA holding the spotlight currently. The sad part is though that people are slowly forgetting the roots of MA. It is up to us that love TMA to keep them alive. Not to let them get diluted and dissolved into multiple aspects of a hundred different RBSD systems. As populations and cultures become more intermingled this is a by product of that interaction. Condensing will always occur.

 

[mook jong man]

We were outside the training hall attacking each other in the dark amongst the parked cars with multiple opponents , weapons and stuff years before these rbsd were even heard of.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

I hear what you are saying about pressure testing. All I can say is look into the history of soem TMA's , Kung Fu and Tae Kwon do for example. Many of these styles were created solely for the purpose of self defense against invading governments etc....... They were created because there lives depended on it. TO me that is the most extreme of pressure testing LOL. I do see your point though about marketing.

TMA is in the background in regards to mainstream America, with MMA holding the spotlight currently. The sad part is though that people are slowly forgetting the roots of MA. It is up to us that love TMA to keep them alive. Not to let them get diluted and dissolved into multiple aspects of a hundred different RBSD systems. As populations and cultures become more intermingled this is a by product of that interaction. Condensing will always occur.

There also remains the problem of there TMA being highly fractured. Its very much a catch-all term that has very different interpretations to different people, and accordingly thoroughly different marketing. That lack of a clear message means that prospective students are far more likely to be swayed by the shock marketing tactics common in RBSD. Alot of what might be advertised might be dubious and questionable, but its advertised louder and clearer than alot of the TMA community.

 

[thardey]

The question is right in the title of this thread!:ultracool

Do you feel that the Reality Based arts teach in a more effective manner than a TMA? For reference purposes, the RBSD arts would fall into the category of folks like Tony Blauer, Peyton Quinn, Marc "Animal" MacYoung, and arts such as Krav Maga. Your TMAs are: TKD, Kenpo, Shotokan, etc.

We have a great mixture of people here on Martial Talk, so I'm hoping we'll get some good debating!

I figure that throughout history, there have been RDSD, which makes in traditional, and that TMA was designed for fighting at the time, which makes it reality-based. I'm sorry if that's not helpful, but I needed to make that point before I go on.

Since this debate is not a new one, but one that goes back for mostly all of history, I think it's fair to compare old thinking about this stuff.

In European swordfighting, there are different classes of fight training. These styles are still being studied and re-born today. At the basic, you have the "Vulgate" style of fighting. Tranlsated, that means the "Common," or "Base" style of fighting. It relies on simple, easy-to replicate, gross motor skill moves that succeed by doing the moves faster than your opponent. Most Soldiers have been taught this throughout history. Especially when you consider that most armies were made up of people from other life-styles that fought for short periods of time. This type of "common soldier" needed to learn quickly how to instinctively perform the correct actions needed to survive.

It is very effective, and is useful for what it is intended.

Then you get into the higher levels of training - for instance, cavalry. Being able to keep your seat during a fight takes a bit of subtlety. It takes longer to learn to fight from a horse, but you can learn the fine-motor skills to ride and fight to a point where it is instinctive. It's got a slower learning curve, but more potential.

It is very effective, and is useful for what it is intended.

Then, there are the highest classes of training. These are represented by fencing masters who dedicated their life to exploring the "science" of fighting. What they teach cannot be used effectively for quite some time, several years if starting from scratch. Until then, it's pretty much useless. However, once the basics are mastered, the sky's the limit as far as potential effectiveness. Very few people through history have pursued this to the end in various fighting styles, but they have an almost mythical status.

It is very effective, and is useful . . .

A good army, will have people from all classes of fighting. It would be stupid to only limit yourself to the elite, because if one gets killed, it would take years to replace him. On the other hand, an army of only common soldiers won't be able to fully use the strength of their numbers.

It's like investing -- you need to have short-term, liquid assets, medium-term, higher-yield, perhaps a bit riskier assets, and long-term, slowly maturing but high-return assets to be successful.

RBSD through TMA is a continuum, not two separate groups. Basic RBSD is the stuff you learn to survive on the playground, where styles with complicated joint-locks or heavy reliance on pressure-points would be at the other end of the spectrum. Everything else falls in-between somewhere. Then you add in the branches of weapon-work, and it gets even more muddled. There's a continuum for knife-work, one for gunfighting, one for improvised weapons, etc.

For instance, I am on the "vulgar" end of knife work and other short-range weapons (but not a total commoner) - slightly more detailed on Gun-fighting, a little more so on empty hand fighting (mostly gross motor skills, but some technical aspects included), and pursuing the "highest class" for swordfighting. (Specific to rapier, that is.) Each one of those fits where I want to be!

People will naturally stick with the place on the continuum that fits their personality most naturally. It depends on how much patience you have for a useful result, and how much you're willing to work for it. When you find a system that gives you the appropriate result for the amount you want to invest - go with it, and stick to it!

That's why the "Best" art is typically the one you are in!

Within that, of course, you have individual training methods. Adrenalin can be produced in different ways, and should be a part of your training, whatever you're doing. Some who pursue the technical arts never stick with it long enough to find the real potential, but stop at a sport level, giving others a mis-representation of the true art. Stuff like that makes it hard to pick a certain style to put in a certain category. A lot of it does depend on the practitioner.

 

[zen4me]

I know if the Aikidoka gets too "real", someone is going to get their arm ripped off. Some martial arts don't lend themselves very well too full out fighting (in practice), too many people would get hurt too bad. You can't very well practice it as one would practice, say, krav-maga. Even if you put on the "red man suit", someone STILL gets their arm ripped out of socket.

I have to take exception to this as Krav doesn't lend it self very well to full out fighting "in practice". As you stated regarding Aikodoka, if it gets too "real" someone is going to get their arm ripped off. Though in the case of Krav, its more likely someone is going to wind up with their balls in their throat, a broken collarbone and perhaps a stomp or two to the head if the chips land that way.

We may pull our strikes in Krav, while training, but we don't pull the intensity and power with which we practice those strikes and techniques.

 

[Xue Sheng]

It's not what you train -- but how you train.

That about covers it

 

[shihansmurf]

I think that in the short term that the RBSD's are much, much more effective at producing effective fighters. A great deal of this is due to the emphasis on physical fitness training inherent in that type of training, as well as the typical focus on basic techniques. I have long held to the idea that the most effective skill set that any striking TMA teaches is contained in the first couple of belt levels. Everything after that is mostly for show.

I figure that throughout history, there have been RDSD, which makes in traditional, and that TMA was designed for fighting at the time

Interesting point, yet most of what is considered a TMA in the Japanese systems are around 100 to 120 years old. TKD in its current form can only be reliably dated to the 1950's. Kenpo/Kempo has a history that can only be indisputably traced to William Chow, after that the events seem to change based on what senior is talking. Given that many military combative systems developed concurrently with them, I would think that the TMA/RBSD dichotomy is not a recent phenomenon. Since most of the modern, and widely practiced, Japanese/Okinawan arts are from the Meiji period or later with the emphasis on the do aspect of the arts versus the jutsu ideology I think a valid argument could be made that most of the "TMA's" were not so much designed for fighting but rather as a sport or artistic pursuit. I can't speak to the CMA side of the house as the only CMA I have ever done is JKD and that is debatable as to weather it is CMA at all.

Just my view
Mark

 

[Hawke]

Reality Based Self Defense VS Traditional Martial Arts

The instructor will be a factor.

How you train another factor.

What about Kali? Silat? I see them both as being effective on the streets.

I have seen Kenpo (EPAK) studios incorporate scenario based training. Does this make it RBSD or still TMA? The Kenpoists I have met in real life and online talk about the evolution of Kenpo.

If you put a TMA in a RBSD setting would you still call it TMA?

For me TMA is learning the art.

RBSD is the application of the art.

 

[FearlessFreep]

History is a continuum. At this point in time we see a snapshot of a flowing river. The dichotomy of TMA/RBSD and TMA/MMA is because we see systems in the snapshot that are in flux and change and think they are static and always have been and always will be as they are now and therefore think the distinctions matter. But as time flows, those who see Martial Art as Art will maintain the traditions of the Art and those that see Martial Arts as Sport will further refine the rules of the Sport for entertainment and competition and those that see Martial Arts as Martial will incorporate those ideas and techniques that work effectively as the world around them changes and the threats and challenges change as well.