I think Chris brings up a great point about "combatives", which would be different than reality based self defense (IMO). Military and LEO should probably go into the combatives discussion.
Might be easier/less confusing to discuss the thread that way. What do you guys think?
This is something that struck me after I logged off to go to bed last nightā¦ I feel that one of the biggest issues in terms of recognising what is actually RBSD is in the initial word, "reality"ā¦ which leads people to the assumption that anything "realistic" is therefore "reality-based", and, by extension, RBSD. Simply put, that's not the case.
Combatives systems are highly realistic. DefTac programs are highly realistic. Martial arts can be highly realistic, depending on the art, the training methodology, and the context. But none of them are RBSD systems. In short, "realistic" does not equal "reality based".
The distinction is in the methodology and context/emphasis. "Realistic", particularly in terms of combative systems, DefTac systems, and so forth, means that they will deal with realistic attacks (commonly meaning, or at least implying, modern attack methods, although I don't feel that's necessary), and has realistic responses to them. RBSD, on the other hand, is a way of addressing the realities of the larger context of self defence, which does encompass realistic attacks and responses, but is really more concerned with what happens beforehand, and the aftermath.
The difference, really, is the same as saying that all pork is bacon, rather than all bacon is pork.
depends who coined these terms and why. Which i have no idea about the history of.
Soā¦ you're arguing because you don't know, rather than arguing because you have better information? Okayā¦
For the record, Jim Wagner claims to have coined the term "Reality Based Self Defence" in 1999, largely as a way to market his system (which he claimed, and still does, was the only "complete" self defence system in the worldā¦) to the magazines etcā¦ however, the concept already existed, and was being championed by people such as Geoff Thompson close to a decade beforehandā¦ and, in my organisation, we'd been employing it since the mid-90's. We (and Geoff) didn't use the term until it gained popularity with Jim's marketing, but the concepts were already in circulation, so to speak.
The point is that RBSD is a specific categorisation, a particular approach and methodologyā¦ yes, it's realistic, but that's not the same as saying that anything "realistic" is RBSD.
W.E. Fairbairn had some quite practical methods, or at least the army thought so when they recruited him. I liked his no nonsense attitude towards dealing with a possible opponent.
That said though, really anything that deals with Close Quarters Control (as opposed to Close Quarters Combat) will usually be reality based. Though nothing is ever flawless.
I thought Systema looked quite good until I saw all the auto-suggestive, touch-less take downs.
L
Well, yeah, Fairbairn had a fair amount of realism to what he presented (well, in the mainā¦ his evocatively titled "Timetable of Death" was largely guesswork and hope, rather than having any basis in reality), but again, that's a combatives system, not an RBSD.
I bet though like the no touch KOs you have to be a 'master' and spend over thirty years practising and then only do it on certain students because it is 'so dangerous'.
It baffles me too. Why concentrate on technique, if you not possess. I spent hours on a bag, because you have practice that of what is preached.
