What Is Reality Based Self-Defense?

[Tez3]

because i read peoples posts.

ROFLMAO. so you can tell what jobs people do/have done by reading their posts? Really? So, by reading my posts can you tell what work I've been in since 1971?

 

[drop bear]

ROFLMAO. so you can tell what jobs people do/have done by reading their posts? Really? So, by reading my posts can you tell what work I've been in since 1971?

professional pole dancer"

 

[Transk53]

professional pole dancer"

That is below the belt man and not nice. You can't tell anything from a forum. That is just a rediculas statement in the previous post as well!

 

[Tez3]

Transk, thank you but please don't worry about it, says far more about him than me.

 

[drop bear]

That is below the belt man and not nice. You can't tell anything from a forum. That is just a ridiculous statement in the previous post as well!

look you can believe everyone is an anti terrorism expert if you want. Doesn't phase me.

My advice still stands. This is not a subject i would play around with unless i knew the person was credible.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Actually Drop Bear there are a number of people on this board that should have experienced some serious anti-terrorism training based on their profession. Even I experienced some way back in the day through my work. (pre 911)

 

[drop bear]

Transk, thank you but please don't worry about it, says far more about him than me.

so was i close?

 

[drop bear]

Actually Drop Bear there are a number of people on this board that should have experienced some serious anti-terrorism training based on their profession. Even I experienced some way back in the day through my work. (pre 911)

So did I but i am not an anti terrorism expert because i did a course.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Very good point! Yet, you have had training which does make you trained and more knowledgeable in this area than your average person.

 

[drop bear]

Very good point! Yet, you have had training which does make you trained and more knowledgeable in this area than your average person.

trained enough to know that you should go to an expert and not put too much faith in what i would have to say on the matter.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yes. I very much doubt anybody here is an anti terrorism expert.

Considering the membership here, I'm 100% certain there are at least 2 who are. Yes, I know which 2. No, I won't say who. Most likely several more given where some of our traffic has historically originated from. There's also the large military, ex-military and law enforcement involvement here.

As to the rude, trolling, insulting and otherwise offensive comments being made, knock it off.

 

[Transk53]

look you can believe everyone is an anti terrorism expert if you want. Doesn't phase me.

My advice still stands. This is not a subject i would play around with unless i knew the person was credible.

You know what drop bear, once again you have missed the point. You are very rude with what you said about Tez. That had nothing to do with Anti-Terrorism. However, as Bob Hubbard has spoken, I will leave it at that. Have a good day Sir.

 

[RTKDCMB]

because i read peoples posts.

How do you know if the anti terrorism experts haven't just kept quiet about certain things and not revealed their expertise in the matter?

 

[drop bear]

How do you know if the anti terrorism experts haven't just kept quiet about certain things and not revealed their expertise in the matter?

It would amount to the same thing though and my advice would remain the same. Which is go seek that training from a credible expert.

 

[tshadowchaser]

back to RBSD and off anti terrorism please. Anti terrorism is far from what would be taught in a RBSD course.

my view on RBSD:
are there any witnesses?
kick the crap out of him
Run
that cover pre, actual and post incounters

 

[Transk53]

because i read peoples posts.

I think is completely obvious that you do actually read peoples posts at all. You see what you want and invent from there.

 

[drop bear]

Ok.
so what percentage of rbsd needs to be,I don't know self defence concept?,
(don't display wealth, don't be a drunk idiot. That sort of thing)

Before it is considered rbsd?

 

[K-man]

Look, I have no doubt over your confidence in your technique… I've got some myself… and I'm familiar with the Krav response to a front choke (in many lines, it's the first method taught)… however, such techniques, practiced in the adrenaline free environment of a training hall, can fail to take into account what might be called the "human element"… natural, hard-wired, instinctive responses and so on. There are a range of survival instincts that can trump even a trained response in many cases, especially if the training hasn't taken them into account in the first place, and a sudden, violent threat to the airways is one of them.

Interesting that you know the Krav response to a front choke. I have only been taught one in Krav and I would never teach it as it has no way of working for a smaller weaker person. I have seen two or three others in various Krav DVDs which are reasonable but the one I teach as first choice comes from Kevin O'Hagan and I'm not sure where he got it from. For those who don't recognise the name, Kevin is a little guy with vast experience across many fields including MMA. This release is based on instinct, requires no real strength and works even if you are backed up against a wall. It also sets you up for your counter attack.

The other releases work well depending on the situation but have limitations if the choke is from the side.

Sure, a "trained person" can recover in a quicker time, allowing for a response, but that doesn't stop the action in the first place having it's intended effect ("freezing", at least momentarily). As I mentioned, we not only use this as part of our methods, but I've personally employed it "live in the field", so to speak, and can attest to it's effect. So that's where I'm coming from.

No one is arguing that you won't get a momentary freeze. It is part of the adrenalin response. The arguement is whether or not you will be paralysed, and I'm not relying on a clinical definition of paralysis. Basically, if I am paralysed, I can't move. That does not happen with a choke hold which ever way it is spun.

No, it does need a context… there's no indication of what the quote was attributing the purpose and process of categorising to. That alone can change the intent and reading of the quote. I mean, I get what you were getting at, but I don't think it's really either correct across the board, or in this case. Disagreeing based on a lack of knowledge isn't really a concern.

I provided the sentence to stand alone in the context of this thread in reply to your post.

"Putting things into categories can be useful, but we have to remember that categories are usually artificial."

You are setting up categories with boundaries. Some of us might disagree with the placement of those boundaries. That is not saying you are wrong, just that there can be differences of opinion.

Yeah… which is still a "set response". Again, the idea of it being something that can be "reasonably expected to be used" neither precludes, nor is essential for a "set response".

You are arguing over nothing here. I tried to set up a mental picture for you. Obviously I failed dismally.

What I was identifying as the flaw in the drill was the way you described continuing in a way that the students couldn't make work. That was a flaw in the drilling method… I wasn't saying anything about the responses themselves being flawed… just following the way you described things.

As I said, you are on a different page. My fault.

Hmm… there's no "intent" there… simply an attempt to accurately define various methodologies.

I thought you intended to put forward an accurate definition. Intend/attempt ... academic really.

What I mean when I use such terms as DefTacs, RBSD etc is the accurate definition of those terms. It really doesn't matter if such a definition isn't "universally accepted"… evolution isn't "universally accepted", that doesn't really have bearing on what's accurate or correct. The attempt to placate by allowing a definition to be stretched to accommodate whatever anyone wants to define something as is firstly inaccurate, secondly redundant, and thirdly a damn insult to anyone interested in actually knowing what the thing is in the first place.

Hmm. Cover all ... it depends. How accurate is the definition in the first place? Either we accept your definition without question and close the thread, or we challenge it. To say, "Here is my definition. If you disagree you are wrong (inaccurate), no longer required (redundant) and rude (damn insult)", is to my mind all of the above.

In other words, I really couldn't care less if people agree or not. The definitions I presented are the accurate definitions. If you disagree, you'd better either have a better definition with more understanding of the topic than myself, or I suggest you accept that I know what I'm talking about, and choose to improve your own understanding by virtue of the information I'm providing.

No one is necessarily disagreeing, nor are they suggesting that you don't know what you are talking about. I'm sure that most of us are grateful for your knowledge and indeed do improve our understanding in the areas of your expertise. But that doesn't mean we can't disagree in part with your definitions. We'll look at those shortly.

And, it might be noted, any time such methods are brought up, anyone else here (LEO for DefTacs, for example) who has experience or understanding in the area have never had issues with my definitions.

Of course they will accept your definitions. Within the context of what you are teaching or what you are writing, that's fine. It doesn't mean that in a different context your definitions are still appropriate.

No, it's not. This thread asks "What is RBSD?" I've given the definition, expanded on it, corrected misunderstandings, agreed with RBSD instructors definitions, and more. It is specifically about "correct or incorrect"… that's how definitions work.

It still doesn't make them anything more than what you believe to be the best definition within your understanding.

So let's revisit your definitions, which I had just accepted on face value.

I think it might be time to get some clear definitions out there:

TMA (Traditional Martial Art): A systematised and codified approach to a particular culturally based expression of violent encounters, focused on expressing lessons through combative techniques and other methods. Not necessarily designed to deal with modern (or even "realistic") violence.

Now for starters the last sentence says it all. "Not necessarily designed to deal with modern violence." The words are a nonsense. A TMA was not designed to deal with modern violence. It was designed to be used against contemporary violence. Why would they design something to use against future violence?

But I got ahead of myself. We are talking of TMA as if people understand what TMA is to begin with. You could argue using this definition that Shotokan karate is a TMA. Within context I could accept that it is traditional if that means having a sensible discussion. But if you take the definition by which the Okinawan Prefecture Karate Rengokai classify traditional styles then it is clearly at odds with that position.

Combatives: A militarily based close-quarters method focusing on direct, gross-motor, reliable methods against common, gross-motor attacks, including the use of small weapons, and against military style weapons. Sometimes called CQC (Close Quarters Combatives). Commonly aggressive.

Hmm! Why "commonly aggressive". Unless you are including de-escalation, it is pretty much full on aggressive. Then you specify that it is for use against common gross motor attacks. What about precise attacks by trained people? I would have thought they might be included here.

DefTacs (Defensive Tactics): A common training method employed by Law Enforcement and similar, this is a simplified gross-motor approach to give application of a tactic, or group of tactics, in a versatile, easily adapted manner. Commonly taught in a "dove-tailed" approach, and dealing with modern forms of violence. Might be aggressive, defensive, passive, controlling, or anything else that the tactic and application demands.

Pretty much open to interpretation here also. "Might be ... or anything else" ... is hardly black and white. "Commonly taught" implies not always.

RBSD (Reality Based Self Defence): A training methodology focused on modern understanding of the broader concept of "self defence", with an emphasis on the pre- and post-fight realities. While it may contain physical combat/engagement methods, these are commonly minimalist. Primary concepts include HAOV (Habitual Acts of Violence), recognition of pre-fight indicators, effects of adrenaline, de-escalation (passive and aggressive), being a "hard target", body language, legal realities (before, during, and after), common assault patterns, social (ritual) violence, psychological aspects (after-effects, PTSD, "limiting beliefs", social programming and conditioning, and more), and so on.

Of course this is where we are really drilling down. "Modern understanding" is according to who? Emphasis on pre- and post-fight realities? Is that really the case, especially in contemporary context? Certainly these are important components but I might have thought a big part was the 'save your butt when the brown stuff hits the fan' might be my emphasis. The other bits I can get in various other places that have nothing to do with RBSD. Then you include habitual acts of violence, McCarthy perhaps? That might need defining as well. Then of course you open it up to discussion by adding "and so on" implying that we can vary the concepts you are listing.

As you can see, TMA, Combatives, Def Tacs (and modern martial arts,sports martial arts, and so on) are largely concerned with "the fight", orthe engagement. That's their focus. RBSD is differentiated by not focusing on that, although it is dealt with. That's the biggest difference.

And of course here you are saying what it's not, again in loosely defined terms.

Chris, I was happy just to accept your definitions and move on until you stated that we all had to accept without question what you had to say as the only course.

This is the bit that makes be wince;
"The attempt to placate by allowing a definition to be stretched to accommodate whatever anyone wants to define something as is firstly inaccurate, secondly redundant, and thirdly a damn insult to anyone interested in actually knowing what the thing is in the first place."

People will define things in the manner they wish to discuss something. You can't win an argument by changing their definition to yours, even if you are right.

 

[drop bear]

No one is arguing that you won't get a momentary freeze. It is part of the adrenalin response. The arguement is whether or not you will be paralysed, and I'm not relying on a clinical definition of paralysis. Basically, if I am paralysed, I can't move. That does not happen with a choke hold which ever way it is spun.

It is spun like this. The choke is incredibly invasive and you think you are going to die.

People do freeze up under stress.

 

[K-man]

It is spun like this. The choke is incredibly invasive and you think you are going to die.

People do freeze up under stress.

Well I, for one will not be relying on it in a tight situation. You have posted two videos on it. The first was more a strike and follow through than a choke and the second was the situation when a guy in a position of authority was restraining a much smaller guy, and FWIW, not choking him.

As to thinking you are about to die, sure if it's properly on. If the trachea is not being crushed that won't happen. If it is, it is likely you will die. Therefore it is a stupid thing to do, the actual choke part, unless you intend to kill the person. It's a bit like pointing a gun at someone's head. If you are not going to pull the trigger it is a bluff. By the time you have actually done the choke or pulled the trigger chances are you have killed him.

So a grab to the throat, threatening? Sure. Momentary freeze? Sure. Paralysis, no way with a trained person. And that's without taking into account the time taken to get that sort of grip. The defence is literally a fraction of a second. It's black and white. The only chance of it succeeding is if you are quick enough and good enough to crush the trachea. If that is your intent then it is black and white in terms of self defence. Unless your life was under threat it could not be construed as justifiable force.