What Is Reality Based Self-Defense?

[MJS]

You guys are misunderstanding drop bear's point entirely. He is not at all claiming that TMA practitioners are unable to defend themselves because they practice indoors without shoes and so on. He is saying that some RBSD practitioners have made that claim and that he thinks the claim is complete rubbish.

(Drop bear - if you could spend a little time adding actual punctuation to your posts it might reduce this sort of confusion. This isn't the first time people have thought you were making a point that you were actually arguing against.)

Ahh...well, in that case, I owe you a thanks for the clarification and an apology to DB.

 

[drop bear]

What sort of training did they do for the pre-fight? What did you learn from it? I've seen schools like that occasionally do a little play acting skit before practicing physical techniques, but it wasn't actually training anything meaningful.

It was always just a little skit pretty much. Even the hoch hocheim stuff. Even the security training.

I mentioned this before that if you compare it to sales training it is really primitive stuff.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Ahh...well, in that case, I owe you a thanks for the clarification and an apology to DB.

Seconded.

 

[drop bear]

Well, if it's just reading off of checklist of pointers (don't display wealth, don't be a drunk idiot, don't date violent assholes, etc), then it's not really training, is it?

Think of it like sparring, which we are both a fan of. If you never get your butt kicked, then you probably aren't learning too much from your sparring, right? To my mind, the pre and post fight scenarios should have just as much pressure and opportunity to screw up under pressure as you encounter in sparring.

As far as percentages, I'm not sure what different teachers go for. If I were looking into RBSD training, I'd want something that was at least 50% focused on pre and post fight. The bit I've had before was 99% pre and post fight.

well like any training there will be both. I generally go on places like lonely planet to get the lecture style tips for the sort of methods to keep you out of trouble.

As far as resisting it on. Ambushing you could do. (we used to have a game on patrols where we would jump out at each other. It got really competitive.)

But i cant see how de escalation could be resisted.

As far as pre and post. We train guys on the job. So it handles itself. If you are new you will be throwing people out.

 

[drop bear]

Seconded.

Don't stress guys. It is an open conversation It takes what it takes to exchange the ideas.

If we get there in the end that is what matters.

 

[drop bear]

Oh and i am on a phone and have stubby fingers.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

As far as resisting it on. Ambushing you could do. (we used to have a game on patrols where we would jump out at each other. It got really competitive.)

But i cant see how de escalation could be resisted.

De-escalation training is tricky. You would need trainers with lots of real world experience in knowing what tends to work and what doesn't and training partners who are good enough actors to respond realistically within the requirements of the role they are playing. It's not something the average martial arts instructor is qualified to throw together.

There are plenty of other aspects of pre-fight that can be explored. One important aspect is learning when to use force and when not to. You can set up scenarios where using force will be a mistake, others where not using force will be a mistake, and others where using force at the wrong moment will be a mistake. Have the scenarios set up by someone who has enough real world experience to make them realistic and set up enough pressure in the role playing that the person going through the scenario doesn't have a chance to carefully think through the options at his leisure. Bonus points if you can set up the scenario to subtly nudge the subject into doing the wrong thing the first time through - it'll help him understand how easy it is to screw up under pressure.

 

[Steve]

It was always just a little skit pretty much. Even the hoch hocheim stuff. Even the security training.

I mentioned this before that if you compare it to sales training it is really primitive stuff.

One thing you might keep in mind, Drop Bear, is that your training may well have been pretty primitive, but there is excellent training out there. Training CAN be very effective.

This isn't to say that I think training can replace experience, as others here believe. You and I agree on that completely. But good scenario based training exists.

 

[drop bear]

De-escalation training is tricky. You would need trainers with lots of real world experience in knowing what tends to work and what doesn't and training partners who are good enough actors to respond realistically within the requirements of the role they are playing. It's not something the average martial arts instructor is qualified to throw together.

There are plenty of other aspects of pre-fight that can be explored. One important aspect is learning when to use force and when not to. You can set up scenarios where using force will be a mistake, others where not using force will be a mistake, and others where using force at the wrong moment will be a mistake. Have the scenarios set up by someone who has enough real world experience to make them realistic and set up enough pressure in the role playing that the person going through the scenario doesn't have a chance to carefully think through the options at his leisure. Bonus points if you can set up the scenario to subtly nudge the subject into doing the wrong thing the first time through - it'll help him understand how easy it is to screw up under pressure.

lol. I still haven't figured that out in real life.

that would be an interesting set up to do. As an example to you act if someone decides to give you a false charge?

 

[drop bear]

One thing you might keep in mind, Drop Bear, is that your training may well have been pretty primitive, but there is excellent training out there. Training CAN be very effective.

This isn't to say that I think training can replace experience, as others here believe. You and I agree on that completely. But good scenario based training exists.

Look I believe it can be done. As i said about sales. Where they have real systems and backups if you fail. The thought gone into that is really comprehensive.

But that sales training is the yard stick in my opinion.

 

[K-man]

Maybe we could go back to the beginning and refocus on the OP. What is Reality Based Self Defence?

Now Chris wrote some interesting and well thought out stuff back earlier. Although I disagree with some of the sentiments of his post, what was written is worth examining and comparing with Jim Wagner's view.

The point is that RBSD, like anything, isn't just "what people want to call RBSD"… it's a specific thing. Are all RBSD systems then the same, exactly? Of course not… but they all contain the hallmarks that would be expected to be encountered, with broadly similar emphasis' and focus'.

It either is (and has the hallmarks of such), or it's not. If someone wants to argue about specific aspects (what to include or exclude), they need to make the argument based on the understanding of the term in the first place.

So here Chris is saying that to be RBSD a system has to have the hallmarks of RBSD. It's a pretty broad summation but seems a fair place to start.

Again here is Chris' definition.

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.

Now if Jim Wagner was the first guy to use the phrase, perhaps we could go back to him to see what he meant by it.

The definition of the term Reality-Based as defined by Jim Wagner is:

Training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that the practitioner is likely to encounter in their environment (their “reality”), in an accordance with the use-of-force continuum of that jurisdiction.

The Jim Wagner Reality-Based Personal Protection system is the world’s original reality-based system, not just because Jim Wagner coined the term for the civilian martial arts, but because it is the very first system to include Pre-Conflict, Conflict, Post-Conflict and the creation of the very first civilian use-of-force continuum graph.
Jim Wagner Reality-Based Personal Protection

OK, so how do these descriptions stack up and what are the differences?

To me, the most obvious difference is the simplicity of Jim's definition.

It is not saying RBSD is the same everywhere. There may not be a definition where 'one size fits all'. Jim's definition talks of the local environment. The training might be different in America to Australia or Israel or Colombia. The expectation of encountering violence is different in those environments, the type of violence is different in those environments, the chance that the violence will involve weapons is different and the cultural characteristics are going to be different. Then, of course, the laws regarding what actions you take are different.

Now I would say that what I teach complies with Jim's description for guys living in my community. In the main, I'm not teaching guys to go into the security industry, I'm not teaching people to work in psyche wards and I am not teaching guys who are likely to be walking the back streets of San Pedro Sula, allegedly the world's most dangerous city.

What are the 'hallmarks' of RBSD according to Jim? Well, the system had to include training based on modern conflict situations. It needs to be suited to the area in which you live and it must comply with the local laws.

What does the training include, a totally different question really? Well here we put in all the bits we have been discussing. Avoidance, de-escalation, pre-fight, post-fight, plus of course any action necessary to physically save your backside.

I guess what I am saying is, I don't need an incredibly complicated, everything included definition. All I need is a definition of what RBSD means to the group I am discussing things with.

Arguing that what this person or that person is teaching is not RBSD is really not overly productive. There are quite simple criteria. Is the person preparing people to cope with violence in the community in which they live or communities they are likely to visit? If so, I believe that is RBSD.

 

[Steve]

I guess what I am saying is, I don't need an incredibly complicated, everything included definition. All I need is a definition of what RBSD means to the group I am discussing things with.

Arguing that what this person or that person is teaching is not RBSD is really not overly productive. There are quite simple criteria. Is the person preparing people to cope with violence in the community in which they live or communities they are likely to visit? If so, I believe that is RBSD.

This seems to me to be another valid and useful definition of RBSD. I particularly like the bolded part above.

 

[tkdwarrior]

Too complicated explanations tend to get lost.....somewhere out there.....anyway....define it anyway you like but it is as simple as it needs to be.

 

[Buka]

De-escalation training is tricky. You would need trainers with lots of real world experience in knowing what tends to work and what doesn't and training partners who are good enough actors to respond realistically within the requirements of the role they are playing. It's not something the average martial arts instructor is qualified to throw together.

You're spot on, Tony, de-escalation IS tricky. And it's different when dealing with adults - than with juveniles - than with folks with mental health issues.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Absolutely Buka. For anyone who has used de-escalation regularly it is tricky and very different from person to person and also different depending on the environment and that societies customs.

 

[wingchunguy]

Well reality based self-defense would be any self-defense training that deals with potential dangers in your current environment as well as how to address the before and after of such confrontations. Whether or not you have the trappings of a traditional martial art or not is irrelevant in my opinion.

Irrelevant? How so? If your martial art is incomplete, like boxing, muay thai or grappling, then when you face someone who knows these systems, you won't know how to handle them. I think it's VERY relevant and even CRUCIAL you know the weaknesses of the system you are using so you can try to fill in the gap so you can become a complete fighter, ready for any situation.

 

[Chris Parker]

Irrelevant? How so? If your martial art is incomplete, like boxing, muay thai or grappling, then when you face someone who knows these systems, you won't know how to handle them. I think it's VERY relevant and even CRUCIAL you know the weaknesses of the system you are using so you can try to fill in the gap so you can become a complete fighter, ready for any situation.

Er… what? I don't think you followed what Himura was saying, as most of this is completely irrelevant itself. There was no mention of "complete" or not, he was describing the focus and ideals of an RBSD system… and pointing out that looking at the trappings (indicative features) of traditional martial arts being present wasn't any real indication at all of an RBSD approach (I'd say that a traditional martial art setting indicates a separate ideology to RBSD myself, for the record, so it's less "irrelevant", and more simply a completely different thing). The idea of knowing different "systems" (completely impractical, for the record) to deal with someone who may happen to know the particular one you've looked at is both not part of the ideals of RBSD methodology, and not relevant or crucial in this sense at all. It's nothing to do with being a "complete fighter", you realise…