What Is Reality Based Self-Defense?

[Chris Parker]

I think you may be right



I was not sure I agreed with you at first but after thinking about it I do believe you are correct and that I need a definition as to what RSBD is supposed to be or a list of styles that are considered RBSD. From a CMA POV Xingyiquan was used by the Chinese military in WW II and Sanda is used today so that is most definitely combative which apparently does not make them RBSD... but I find myself also thinking of algebra where a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. Could it be possible that a combative could be an RBSD but an RSBD cannot be a combative? That is a legitimate question because at this point I am more than willing to admit I am not exactly sure what constitutes the label "RBSD

Hey, Xue,

Not quite… it's more that an RBSD can contain aspects of a combatives, or combatives like approach, but a combatives system can't be an RBSD system itself.

if its origins are vague then its meaning will be vague as well.

because everyone who invented it will claim they meant something different by it.

Where did you read that the origins are vague? The term itself was coined and popularised by Jim Wagner, but the concepts that he gave the moniker of RBSD to predated his usage of the term… there's nothing in that that indicates that either the name or it's origins are vague, or with the meaning thereof.

The catch is, really, when the term is used when it's not accurate… when people think that, because they're doing something they consider "realistic", they're doing RBSD… but that's the same with any term… and doesn't make the actual meaning vague or unclear, just misused.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hey, Xue,

Not quite… it's more that an RBSD can contain aspects of a combatives, or combatives like approach, but a combatives system can't be an RBSD system itself.

Absolutely and likewise an RBSD system because of it's limitations is not a full on military combatives system. It can contain aspects of combatives but because of it being geared towards self defense/personal protection in a modern setting and trying to play within the customs and rule of the law of the country it is from it falls short of being a true combatives program.

RBSD is perfect for civilians wishing for a program that will give them personal protection skills, legal knowledge, pre-conflict, conflict and post conflict skills. When done right.

Defensive Tactics and Handcuffing skills are ideal for LEO's based on what they will need for their job. Their job places them in situations different than what an everyday citizen would encounter. Where a citizen can leave a dangerous situation by choice an LEO in general will have to handle the situation.

Combatives when geared towards extreme violence generally is perfect for military units though it certainly can be beneficial for LEO's and civilians in a moment of violence provided they can stay within the letter of the law.

What we do have out there as Chris alluded to is a lot of Combatives systems now using the moniker of Reality Based Self Defense without understanding what RBSD is. We also have some RBSD people trying to have it both ways and present the image of a Combatives program. So we definitely have some confusion in the martial world regarding this topic.

Then we have the issue of RBSD training can be different based on regional characteristics and social customs.

This is a very interesting topic!

 

[drop bear]

Where did you read that the origins are vague? The term itself was coined and popularised by Jim Wagner, but the concepts that he gave the moniker of RBSD to predated his usage of the term… there's nothing in that that indicates that either the name or it's origins are vague, or with the meaning thereof.

i did a google look. i cant find anything that says jim Wagner invented the term. I cant even find a history on it. If it predated him then who invented it and what did they mean by the term?

which is where i am getting the idea that it is vague.

i used to do zen do kai. Which was called a hybrid at the time that played around with self defence concepts rather than traditional ones(sort of) anything that would be called a rbsd now was a hybrid then.

not sure when that changed.

so i am really not sure how we have pinned down a syllabus.

 

[drop bear]

Sorry not a hybrid. They were called freestyle.

 

[Transk53]

Okay now the thread makes sense. Very interesting indeed!

 

[Transk53]

Sorry not a hybrid. They were called freestyle.

What was, RBSD? Sorry I missed the point with this post

 

[K-man]

Just to muddy the water a little. Like many other topics, this is not black and white and the definitions will vary according to the laws of the different countries. In past discussions people have claimed that their martial art provided them with 'self defence' when in reality the link to self defence was at the very best, tenuous. I think, for those of us with decades of involvement in the martial arts, if you turned the clock back twenty years or so we would all have claimed we were learning self defence. Heck, that's exactly why I took up boxing back in the 50s. I was being bullied at school. Understanding changes with time and experience.

So just as there is an overlap of TMA, Sport MA and Self Defence that will vary for each individual person involved, so is there an overlap between RBSD and Combatives. With the prevalence of guns and knives in countries like the US there will be more overlap than in places like the UK and Australia where if you avoid certain trouble spots you are unlikely to encounter a gun or a knife in your life.

Then, you can add your other training back into the equation. If someone, for example, has an extensive background in TMA it is likely that they will have many of the same skills required in RBSD. Sure, the training methodology is very different and it will take you longer in a TMA to get to the same level of street effectiveness, but the underlying goal is the same. If we are ever physically threatened we will have the ability to avoid a bad situation or defend against a physical assault and get home safely.

Now guys like Chris will argue, quite validly, that a number of TMAs, especially the ones he studies, have nothing to do with self defence. I would argue that there are other TMAs were self defence is a major part of the training. I would also contend that that training can contain a significant element of RBSD. Some of us teach more than one MA. How do I explain to one group or the other that their training is not as effective to defend themselves on the street? Quite simply, I don't. In fact with the problems of everyone having times mixed up in the rush before Christmas, I invited the Krav guys who couldn't make the regular training session to come to the Karate class. For me the training is almost the same and the outcome is also the same.

In other threads we have had people with no knowledge of kata talking about how it is a total waste of time. Fine. No problem there. If you don't want to learn kata, do something like Krav. No kata there ... or is there? When I teach combinations in Krav, where do a lot of the combinations come from? My guys practise kata without even knowing it.

Where I think there is a huge problem in most training, and I don't claim to have overcome it, is how to test it for effectiveness. Now in Krav you put on gloves and some protective gear and have a bit of a slogfest, not unlike what you might see in low grade MMA. Is it useful? Sure. It gets you used to hitting and being hit but it doesn't provide you with the experience to deal with adrenalin, and it still doesn't make you 'bullet proof'. In most karate places they do their sport type sparring. To me that is pretty much the same. In BJJ you are working to submit someone. Same, same. In our karate it's probably a blend of the Krav and grappling with less striking and kicking, but again, it is not being full on tested. You can make the training as realistic as you like but it will never be the same as the real situation.

The point was made in a previous post that 'realistic' training is not the same as 'RB' training. I'm not sure I agree totally with that sentiment, again, a matter of degree, not black and white. 'Realistic' training has to be in context. Realistic training in say Kendo, probably has nothing to do with 'reality' in a street context where realistic training in Krav has a huge amount in common with RBSD.

Just some thoughts.

 

[drop bear]

What was, RBSD? Sorry I missed the point with this post

that rbsd are probably evolutions of the old freestyle concept

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I would not quite say that drop bear. Reality Based Self Defense is it's own beast. Certainly some previous eclectic/hybrid systems could fit in with the Reality Based Self Defense model but only if they fit the mold.

 

[K-man]

i used to do zen do kai. Which was called a hybrid at the time that played around with self defence concepts rather than traditional ones(sort of) anything that would be called a rbsd now was a hybrid then.

not sure when that changed.

You must have been a baby karate-ka back then.

I think you didn't understand what ZDK was attempting with their freestyle concept. When these guys broke away from Goju Kai they were principally setting up an organisation to supply the security industry. They took out all the content that they considered to be not valid training such as kata and put in a lot of other stuff that was of interest to them such as traditional weaponry. You might be interested to know that they have reintroduced kata to their training and are also starting to train the bunkai.

Freestyle ZDK was never a hybrid. It was pretty much Goju Kai karate without kata and without Japanese terminology. I would consider that what they developed was an attempt at a reality based system although they still did do a lot of competition as well. That overflowed into other training where Bob Jones was the first in Australia to introduce kickboxing and it is still a big part of his organisation.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I would agree K-man that there is cross over between TMA's, Combatives and Reality Based Self Defense systems. This of course all would depend on the instructor and their training, knowledge, teaching, etc.

 

[tkdwarrior]

http://knockouts.pw/?p=665

If this is not what rbsd is, I do not know what is.

 

[Flatfish]

http://knockouts.pw/?p=665

If this is not what rbsd is, I do not know what is.

I have a feeling that the punches and kicks to the head after the guy is down could land you in a world of legal trouble if you don't have your running shoes laced up tightly.....

 

[tkdwarrior]

Well...i would rather be sure than not. I prefer deescalation and even taking a hit than engagement. It is always best to stay away from trouble but if left with no choice.....

 

[Flatfish]

Well...i would rather be sure than not. I prefer deescalation and even taking a hit than engagement. It is always best to stay away from trouble but if left with no choice.....

Oh, understood and understandable, unfortunately ( just based on my research into the topic, would love to hear other opinions....), i would venture to guess that the law would look at this in a lot of cases as crossing the line from self defense into assault. The guy is down, the immediate threat is gone, you have time to get away......but you don't.....

 

[drop bear]

I would not quite say that drop bear. Reality Based Self Defense is it's own beast. Certainly some previous eclectic/hybrid systems could fit in with the Reality Based Self Defense model but only if they fit the mold.

depending on the history of rbsd.

hey we could have a linage war. They are always fun.

 

[tkdwarrior]

I do not advocate this type of violence, hitting when you have the guy down already, if it were me I would have resorted to a control lock/hold or used large cable straps, if I had them, on the perp. The attacker should have thought about the consequences first before he did anything foolish. For me he had it coming.

 

[K-man]

I have a feeling that the punches and kicks to the head after the guy is down could land you in a world of legal trouble if you don't have your running shoes laced up tightly.....

I would say that Krav crosses a few boundaries. It's beauty lies in its versatility. Assuming you have been taught correctly you may have the option to avoid trouble, you might be able to use deescalation techniques, you may be able to fend off, or restrain or a not to subtle thump. That more or less takes care of the ordinary self defence part. Then we get into the stuff of the video where there is a significant threat to your safety. You are able to use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself. At this time there are no absolutes. Nothing says you can do this but you mustn't do that. At the end of the day you may have to justify your actions in court. If you have witnesses that back up your case it is highly unlikely to proceed. If you have used excessive violence then tough titties. You might even go to jail. That is why it is so stupid for people to engage in violence if they don't need to.

With Krav you can go further into Combatives if you like. Do you have to use everything you are taught? Of course not but let's say you are facing kidnap by a group of armed thugs. Are you going to apologise if you stomp on someone's neck? At that stage your life is in danger. If you get into their car there's more than a fair chance it is a one way trip.

Mate, if your doing martial arts to keep fit and impress your friends, cool. Hopefully you won't be putting your life or liberty on the line. But if you are a serious martial artist training to defend yourself on the street then you had better be trained to do what needs to be done and be able to recognise the point where you stop damaging your attacker. We've discussed the kick to the head in other threads. Can you justify kicking someone in the head? Sure. Are there times when it could land you in trouble? Sure. The big question is, can you tell the difference?

 

[drop bear]

http://knockouts.pw/?p=665

If this is not what rbsd is, I do not know what is.

interestingly. I was having this discussion with Chris and he suggests rbsd is not about wholesale kicking butt.

 

[drop bear]

I would say that Krav crosses a few boundaries. It's beauty lies in its versatility. Assuming you have been taught correctly you may have the option to avoid trouble, you might be able to use deescalation techniques, you may be able to fend off, or restrain or a not to subtle thump. That more or less takes care of the ordinary self defence part. Then we get into the stuff of the video where there is a significant threat to your safety. You are able to use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself. At this time there are no absolutes. Nothing says you can do this but you mustn't do that. At the end of the day you may have to justify your actions in court. If you have witnesses that back up your case it is highly unlikely to proceed. If you have used excessive violence then tough titties. You might even go to jail. That is why it is so stupid for people to engage in violence if they don't need to.

With Krav you can go further into Combatives if you like. Do you have to use everything you are taught? Of course not but let's say you are facing kidnap by a group of armed thugs. Are you going to apologise if you stomp on someone's neck? At that stage your life is in danger. If you get into their car there's more than a fair chance it is a one way trip.

Mate, if your doing martial arts to keep fit and impress your friends, cool. Hopefully you won't be putting your life or liberty on the line. But if you are a serious martial artist training to defend yourself on the street then you had better be trained to do what needs to be done and be able to recognise the point where you stop damaging your attacker. We've discussed the kick to the head in other threads. Can you justify kicking someone in the head? Sure. Are there times when it could land you in trouble? Sure. The big question is, can you tell the difference?

i would be concened about training that into muscle memory