Reality Based Martial Arts: Are They Teaching Us Anything New?

[MJS]

There are many RBSD instructors out there, such as Peyton Quinn, Marc MacYoung, Tony Blauer, etc. Many times they take 'heat' from people due to the fact that some tend to look down at the TMA's, speak negative about kata, say that certain things won't work, etc. The material that they teach is usually said to be the best, when it comes to dealing with a real world attack.

However, are they really teaching us anything new? Did they create a system that is not lacking? If we look at much of the material that we see in these courses, its appears to be nothing new, per se, but the application of the material tends to be different.

What are your thoughts on the material, the people and their overall view on the arts?

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I don't even think the application of the material is different, they just use different catch phrases. They however do promote a different mindset, and that has it's good points as well as bad. But as far as technique goes, the human body can only move in so many ways, so too that they bring nothing new.

Many of them do look down upon the more traditional styles. For the most part I think it's just ignorance. They really haven't looked at any of the TMA's in depth enough to understand them.

Just my .02

Jeff

 

[tshadowchaser]

If one where to go back about 50 years or more I think that we would see people in the TMA'S learned all that the new schools are offering but where first required to show loyalty and dedication to their respective arts before being given the whole package. I believe strikes where and still are taught in judo and throws and ground work where taught in "karate" but all was not given to the beginners

 

[Drac]

Heard about Tony Blauer from info sent to the department, it seems to be effective and he has developed a loyal following..His stuff seems a little pricey to me...

 

[Garth Barnard]

Wikipedia has got a pretty accurate description of RBSD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBSD

Take care,

Garth.

 

[Explorer]

Seems to me their value is in the intent. I really like having them call classical and traditional martial artists to task for not including this mindset into our training. I'm a classical Shorin Ryu guy and they really make me think about bunkai and oyo. Adding speed and resistance to our standard drills helps weed out inferior techniques. Of course, I disagree with their view of kata ... but that's ok.

These guys are valuable in they keep the rest of us honest.

 

[Bigshadow]

Adding speed and resistance to our standard drills helps weed out inferior techniques.

IMHO, one must be careful about speed. If something has not been properly learned and one uses speed, it can give the illusion that it actually works. Vice versa if one thinks they are doing something right and they speed it up and it doesn't work, they are doing it wrong. True and solid techniques work SLOW and FAST. :asian:

 

[HKphooey]

I think times are changing and you have more and more "yahoo's" taking quick courses on MMA, home study courses or just dropping out after theri yellow belt. They can be dangerous because their lack of control. So on the flip side you need make sure the material you are learning is suitable for combating this issue. If the RBMA organization is reputable; specialized training for LEO, security, ot military personnel can be effective. Just like any MA training, the dedication to training and seriousness still needs to be there.

 

[jks9199]

There are many RBSD instructors out there, such as Peyton Quinn, Marc MacYoung, Tony Blauer, etc. Many times they take 'heat' from people due to the fact that some tend to look down at the TMA's, speak negative about kata, say that certain things won't work, etc. The material that they teach is usually said to be the best, when it comes to dealing with a real world attack.

However, are they really teaching us anything new? Did they create a system that is not lacking? If we look at much of the material that we see in these courses, its appears to be nothing new, per se, but the application of the material tends to be different.

What are your thoughts on the material, the people and their overall view on the arts?

I'm acquainted with Peyton Quinn; I only know many of the others by reputation (some good, some less good...).

But Peyton doesn't disdain or look down on the traditional martial arts. He just has a different (and very effective) way of teaching a specified part of combative training. And he recognizes that all the hours of technical training go out the window and become useless if you freeze when something happens. My teacher taught me that "under pressure, the mind goes blank." That's why we rely on lots of practice and drill to learn, and why he put us in different forms of pressure.

So... Are the so-called "reality based martial arts" teaching something new? Nope, I don't think so. I think many are just marketing tools. Others MAY add a new way to simulate some of the stresses of a real fight. (And a lot of them... Are crap. Made up to justify someone's multi-hundred dollar seminar/clinic fee...)

 

[Xue Sheng]

Its all Martial Arts.

Did Judo teach us anything new when it appeared?
Did Yang Style Tai Chi teach us anything new when it appeared?
Did Karate teach us anything new when it appeared?
Did Sanshou teach us anything new when it appeared?
Did Aikido teach us anything new when it appeared?

Yes

But does that make them better?

No, just different.

 

[stabpunch]

So... Are the so-called "reality based martial arts" teaching something new? Nope, I don't think so. I think many are just marketing tools. Others MAY add a new way to simulate some of the stresses of a real fight. (And a lot of them... Are crap. Made up to justify someone's multi-hundred dollar seminar/clinic fee...)

Agreed

RBMA... It's marketing. However there is a market due to the environment many of us live in. To classify reality based training systems as a style is stereotyping. I feel the goal of the instructor is of more importance than the system taught. Is your instructor generating income or confidence? Are their students dollar signs in their eyes or people who they want to improve and pass knowledge on to?

For me I am not really interested in the tradition and learning 100 move kata performed by someone's 'great great grandfather's second cousin's uncle's sensei'. For me a lot of tradition seems unnecessary. Sure to learn the tradition does show dedication, perseverance and loyalty. However so does showing up to class three times a week for two years. Perhaps when I am forty I will take up tai chi and learn some beautiful movements and meditation, for now I am interested in defending myself and my loved ones. I am interested in the confidence and fitness martial arts can provide. My dedication to my style has and does provide these things.

We aren't dong anything new, we are using existing techniques for the purpose of self preservation rather than art or sport. At the end of the day the quality of instructor and system can be defined by the quality of student they produce.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

IMHO, one must be careful about speed. If something has not been properly learned and one uses speed, it can give the illusion that it actually works. Vice versa if one thinks they are doing something right and they speed it up and it doesn't work, they are doing it wrong. True and solid techniques work SLOW and FAST. :asian:

This is a great point that Bigshadow makes!

RBSD training is great when the teacher has depth to their training and an understanding of the mindset during a violent encounter. However, many RBSD courses are now prohibitively too expensive based on the instruction people receive. That really is my only gripe with many of the RBSD instructors and courses out there. However, this will probably even out over time as those individuals get less referals or people taking their courses a second time.


Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com

 

[Robert Lee]

Its really not new its how the training is done. Many a TAM dojo/school has really made the training soft and not tested through resistance. And people find its not there when needed. If anthing the open concepts you see today should breath life back into training. You can not punch let the person block hold your arm out while they counter you and expect real results. Have to step it up after you build the foundation To put some life into what you do. Or the students may never really be able to use that training in a real situation. To many times because of softer training People have been fooled into thinking they could defend there self And find out the othere person is really not playing they are fighting back and trying to hurt them. Thats why you see and will see say a come back to a more productive method of training. Yes years ago TMA training was harder and if you stayed the course you learned. But todays time people are blackbelts in what a year a year and a half I have met some that made black belt in 6 months But they did not put in the work on really knowing there art. The just learned required moves and were given rank after rank. And then the 6 year old black belts ten year old ones to. Its Not going to work giving out rank after rank. and making students think they can fight playing tag/points in spars If the core training is to soft. M/A is not all about fighting But the key to all the training is about learning good strong tools while you learn to be a more respectable person. Thats hard workouts bumps and bruises pushing your limits Making the art your own. T M A needs to rethink the training agin. NOT all schools But the money and belt schools have made people laugh at what goes on in a real world application. And a fancy dance that plays at learning real selfdefence. This is not a negetive Lookat TMA I know any GOOD school Turns out some very good students. But the many newer ones turns out actors that think they can fight And super belts 5 dans in 3 years of training.

 

[pstarr]

Good point! I have to agree - and in Yiliquan, students move up until they're attacking each other at full-tilt boogie. If the receiver doesn't get his technique right, he gets whacked. In this way, they learn to respond to real attacks and those who have (unfortunately) had to apply their skill on the street will vouch for it.

Otherwise, I think the reality-based stuff is just some (certainly not all by a long shot) of the old stuff in a new package. Instead of formal training uniforms, they wear cammies or whatever - which, come to think of it, has become their uniform, as it were...

But yes, I must agree that largely due to commercialism, many schools no longer teach traditional martial arts as they once were. Yiliquan still does.

 

[Explorer]

IMHO, one must be careful about speed. If something has not been properly learned and one uses speed, it can give the illusion that it actually works. Vice versa if one thinks they are doing something right and they speed it up and it doesn't work, they are doing it wrong. True and solid techniques work SLOW and FAST. :asian:

Couldn't agree more. I've also noticed that some techniques simply are not safe to perform at higher speeds ... like finger locks (white crane nods its head or twists its neck). If I do these at speed the probability of detaching connective tissue in the hand increases exponentially ... after all , that's what they were designed to do.

 

[James Kovacich]

There are many RBSD instructors out there, such as Peyton Quinn, Marc MacYoung, Tony Blauer, etc. Many times they take 'heat' from people due to the fact that some tend to look down at the TMA's, speak negative about kata, say that certain things won't work, etc. The material that they teach is usually said to be the best, when it comes to dealing with a real world attack.

However, are they really teaching us anything new? Did they create a system that is not lacking? If we look at much of the material that we see in these courses, its appears to be nothing new, per se, but the application of the material tends to be different.

What are your thoughts on the material, the people and their overall view on the arts?

Technically, nothing new and the same can be said about the systems we first learned because someone did those same techniques before those systems were created.

But what the (good) new systems have that the olds ones don't have is "less." Less is better because they've whittled their systems down to the bread and butter. Not just technique wise but also conceptually.

Training only the best and most effective technique rather than starting off with the standard yellow belt kata and self defense techniques, excelerates an individuals training progression. It allows a person to "possibly" use some the material "they just learned" the same day, versus having to wait until "we figure it out."

Everyone lashes out at the 2 year blackbelts but 2 years of better training "can" go farther than alot of the 5-6 year black belts. I think that we could at the military and see who are they "hiring." Really hiring, not the fakes that advertise they trained the military but really didn't. I know of "one" traditional instructor who claims to teach the U.S. military but from what I've seen they are going after the "modernized" instructors rather than the old.

 

[MJS]

Thank you all for the great replies!

If we look at the tools, pretty much all of them are found in other arts. However, as others have said, and I agree, that its the way the tools are applied that we can see a difference. As akja stated, they've pretty much trimmed down alot of the material, pretty much focusing on the 'meat' rather than alot of the side dishes.

I think the use of scenario drills as well as always adding in the bit of aliveness/realism, does alot to seperate the two.

Personally, I think that both the TMAs and the RBMAs have alot to offer. I haven't abandoned my original method of training, but I do 'borrow' ideas, drills, etc from the RBMAs, adding them into my training.

Mike

 

[stabpunch]

Really hiring, not the fakes that advertise they trained the military but really didn't. I know of "one" traditional instructor who claims to teach the U.S. military but from what I've seen they are going after the "modernized" instructors rather than the old.

In regard to the fakes, they may have done a one day seminar for a military or police unit. Unfortunately this does not mean that the police or military can use their technique, because there is strict legislation that must be followed. In the day of the law suit reasonabe force does not (unfortunately) constitute breaking a limb to gain compliance...

If ever uncertain whether a RB system is as it appears in terms of military or police use, ask the instructor how their technique fits in with your local legislation. This should give you a clear indication.

 

[CuongNhuka]

In my oppion most martial arts are based on concepts/philosophys/doctrines. And that the physical material being taught is meant as a way to get the concepts ingrained into your skull better. The doctrines behind many (if not all) reality based fighting systems/self defense classes/mma styles is do what you can do now, and scrapp the rest.
Because of this, some of what they do is differnit, but the accual material is nothing new. But few styles can say that they came up with alot of unique techniques. But then that is mostly because there are only so many ways the human body can move effectivly.
If any one is wondering the concept behind Cuong Nhu is, it's never stop learning, never stop growing, and keep an open mind to all things.

 

[James Kovacich]

1) In my oppion most martial arts are based on concepts/philosophys/doctrines. And that the physical material being taught is meant as a way to get the concepts ingrained into your skull better. The doctrines behind many (if not all) reality based fighting systems/self defense classes/mma styles is do what you can do now, and scrapp the rest.

2) Because of this, some of what they do is differnit, but the accual material is nothing new. But few styles can say that they came up with alot of unique techniques. But then that is mostly because there are only so many ways the human body can move effectivly.
If any one is wondering the concept behind Cuong Nhu is, it's never stop learning, never stop growing, and keep an open mind to all things.

1) True. many preach this but when we visit their school this is not what we see.

2) Yes, "some" is differant but the "some" is what is most important. Most schools say that they did "this and that" all along or it's hidden in their techniques but they're fulling themselves. I pick holes in a lot of systems because they make those claims but in reality this trainer and his school in one of the "few" that are actually "living it."
http://www.knucklepit.com/mixed%20martial%20arts-john%20hackleman.htm

"Most" of the rest, if their "preachin' it," still have their blinders on.