Based on just the video what exactly is it that makes it reality based? The techniques? The setting? or the attire?
What Is Reality Based Self-Defense?
- Thread starter Brian R. VanCise
- Start date
tkdwarrior
Green Belt
I guess you could answer that question.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Okay...
You're not following what I've said… in fact, you've gotten it kinda backwards. The term Reality Based Self Defence (RBSD) was coined by Jim Wagner in 1999… he then popularised it in a large number of magazines and publications, most notably Black Belt magazine, which is where it really started to take off… however, what he was teaching, and now referring to as RBSD, was already being done (but not with that name) by others, such as Geoff Thompson at least half a decade prior.
So, to be clear, those that started developing and presenting these concepts didn't use the term RBSD initially… some simply referred to it as "defence training" or similar, others gave it a system name, like anything else, and others didn't really name it at all. Jim was the guy that simply gave it a name… and, honestly, Jim's biggest talent is for marketing, using a number of pseudonyms, as well as his real name in order to get his messages and offerings out there, and this is one of his biggest contributions. That's not to diminish his actual programs and methods, but they're not quite in the same league as others, I feel.
Honestly, there's nothing vague about it… we know where the name comes from, we know who named it, we know what he defined it as (which has been covered by myself, and in the articles Brian linked, early in the thread)… there's really no confusion on that side. The only confusion is when people apply it where it's not actually accurate.
I'm quite familiar with ZDK… it wasn't a "hybrid", at least initially… there were changes later, which made it more so, but that was really not it's original form or intention. But, that said, no, an RBSD today is not a hybrid either… so the idea that "hybrids" of days past were RBSD's is not accurate at all.
Er… it didn't.
We haven't "pinned down a syllabus", because there isn't one. Each system, or approach of RBSD will have their own… the same way you can't pin down a Kung Fu syllabus… there are many many variants. However, there are certain things that are always there… and those we have pinned down.
Which is completely different, and was meant to imply "not tied to a prescribed method", hence the initial eschewing of kata and other training devices. Of course, they've smartened up again these days, and brought it back…
Er, no. No real connection at all, actually. About the only thing you could say that they have in common is a non-traditional approach… other than that, well… no.
Then, for what it's worth, that is not RBSD. It's Krav Maga… a military-derived Israeli combatives system… as has been detailed in this thread already… again, "realistic" is not the same as Reality Based…
I'm not sure what you're saying here… you'd rather continue to pummel the other guy as you'd rather "be sure than not", but you prefer de-escalation and taking a hit? You're then talking about not having a choice… weren't you, in another thread, talking about how you kicked a guy (who'd already been rather beaten by a number of others) with steel capped boots, talking about how well you think it worked? Hmm…
And, again, no. You've been given the history, such as it is… it's a concept that came out of the 90's, and hit it's stride in the first decade of this century. There have been a number of notable teachers and forms, which cover a wide range of approaches, but all have a similar overarching methodology and set of concepts. However, outside of particular streams (such as Senshido), there is no "lineage" at all… just a range of guys (and gals) teaching.
Yeah, again you're going in multiple directions in this post… you don't advocate it, talk about the other guy being a "perp" (unless you're an LEO, he's not a "perp"… and, if you are, you're dealing with a different context to self defence [civilian]), then say that he "should have thought about the consequences… he had it coming"?!? At that point you'd seemingly had him down, and applied straps or a hold… what did he then "have coming"?
I don't know if this is a language issue, but it's not really clear what you're meaning, or which side of any of this you're intending to be on…
Hey mate, can you detail what Krav's de-escalation approach or methodology is?
It's not.
That's a matter for the training methodology.
You're not following what I've said… in fact, you've gotten it kinda backwards. The term Reality Based Self Defence (RBSD) was coined by Jim Wagner in 1999… he then popularised it in a large number of magazines and publications, most notably Black Belt magazine, which is where it really started to take off… however, what he was teaching, and now referring to as RBSD, was already being done (but not with that name) by others, such as Geoff Thompson at least half a decade prior.
So, to be clear, those that started developing and presenting these concepts didn't use the term RBSD initially… some simply referred to it as "defence training" or similar, others gave it a system name, like anything else, and others didn't really name it at all. Jim was the guy that simply gave it a name… and, honestly, Jim's biggest talent is for marketing, using a number of pseudonyms, as well as his real name in order to get his messages and offerings out there, and this is one of his biggest contributions. That's not to diminish his actual programs and methods, but they're not quite in the same league as others, I feel.
Honestly, there's nothing vague about it… we know where the name comes from, we know who named it, we know what he defined it as (which has been covered by myself, and in the articles Brian linked, early in the thread)… there's really no confusion on that side. The only confusion is when people apply it where it's not actually accurate.
I'm quite familiar with ZDK… it wasn't a "hybrid", at least initially… there were changes later, which made it more so, but that was really not it's original form or intention. But, that said, no, an RBSD today is not a hybrid either… so the idea that "hybrids" of days past were RBSD's is not accurate at all.
Er… it didn't.
We haven't "pinned down a syllabus", because there isn't one. Each system, or approach of RBSD will have their own… the same way you can't pin down a Kung Fu syllabus… there are many many variants. However, there are certain things that are always there… and those we have pinned down.
Which is completely different, and was meant to imply "not tied to a prescribed method", hence the initial eschewing of kata and other training devices. Of course, they've smartened up again these days, and brought it back…
Er, no. No real connection at all, actually. About the only thing you could say that they have in common is a non-traditional approach… other than that, well… no.
Then, for what it's worth, that is not RBSD. It's Krav Maga… a military-derived Israeli combatives system… as has been detailed in this thread already… again, "realistic" is not the same as Reality Based…
I'm not sure what you're saying here… you'd rather continue to pummel the other guy as you'd rather "be sure than not", but you prefer de-escalation and taking a hit? You're then talking about not having a choice… weren't you, in another thread, talking about how you kicked a guy (who'd already been rather beaten by a number of others) with steel capped boots, talking about how well you think it worked? Hmm…
And, again, no. You've been given the history, such as it is… it's a concept that came out of the 90's, and hit it's stride in the first decade of this century. There have been a number of notable teachers and forms, which cover a wide range of approaches, but all have a similar overarching methodology and set of concepts. However, outside of particular streams (such as Senshido), there is no "lineage" at all… just a range of guys (and gals) teaching.
Yeah, again you're going in multiple directions in this post… you don't advocate it, talk about the other guy being a "perp" (unless you're an LEO, he's not a "perp"… and, if you are, you're dealing with a different context to self defence [civilian]), then say that he "should have thought about the consequences… he had it coming"?!? At that point you'd seemingly had him down, and applied straps or a hold… what did he then "have coming"?
I don't know if this is a language issue, but it's not really clear what you're meaning, or which side of any of this you're intending to be on…
Hey mate, can you detail what Krav's de-escalation approach or methodology is?
It's not.
That's a matter for the training methodology.
Flatfish
Black Belt
I absolutely agree with this and with the necessity to use whatever if your life is in danger etc. but I maintain what I said about the videos which in many instances show the "bad guy" getting hit and stomped on after he is already down, rolling on the floor and covering himself. That would most likely be taken as excessive force and the " good guy" did not recognize the stopping point.
Could there be a scenario where getting another kick in to make sure he stays down would be appropriate? Sure, i.e. multiple attackers etc.
I think we mostly agree here....
Nope!
It has now gotten to the stage where there are so many different brands of Krav Maga, it's hard to even trace some of their links back to Imi Lichtenfeld or even Israel, that there is very little of anything that is 'Krav', but that's a whole other discussion.
So, what I actually said was ... "Assuming you have been taught properly ... " , by which I meant, anyone teaching this type of stuff has a responsibility to ensure, as much as possible, that people learning to cause maximum destruction of a fellow human being should try other avenues first before going ballistic.
Which leads nicely to ..
'Muscle memory' is really motor learning, nothing to actually do with the muscles learning to do anything. More it is the ability to respond to a situation, performing a response without conscious effort.
To put that into context, someone throws a punch. I have been taught many different responses to that so which response do I produce? The answer is, if I have to think about it it's probably too late (which is why I don't teach blocks), so possibly none of them. I will respond instinctively, possibly by throwing my arms up, possibly by moving my head ... who knows? Only after I have responded (survival response) will my MA training kick in and instinctively I will react from the situation I am in. So does that mean that because I have trained a scenario through to a neck crank the kid who attacked me has to die? Obviously not. The scenario drill is just that. The ability to move seamlessly from one technique to the next as required to such a time that the threat is no longer there.
...
Which then leads on to what I look at as an essential difference between pre-arranged drills and reality based response. If I am teaching (karate) a combination of techniques from a kata I will start with what the combination means to me. The guys can drill that and if it works for them, fine. However, if it obviously isn't working for them we go back a step and try to find something that flows for them and we drill that.
In my Krav class it is different again. I might start of with an impromptu attack, say a left jab, right cross. So I might say, "parry with your right hand and step in and to your right, trap his left arm above the elbow with the left hand and hit him with the right on the side of the head". Now four out of five guys will start doing that drill but one will be left stranded. The combination will come and he'll react one way or another and step to the left. I'll stop the drill for him immediately and modify it for him so he is moving to the left. For him there is no way, in any reasonable time frame, that I can teach him the original drill to a level that he could use it in a real fight. His instinct is to move the other way so why would I want to change that? I want to build on what he does without thinking. A point here too, I will be 99% sure in an unrehearsed situation if his partner attacked with a right jab, left cross, he would still move to the left.
I think this is possibly the biggest difference between a martial arts school that teaches a response to a given attack and a reality based self defence class that teaches you to respond instinctively to what is happening around you.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Sure, that is part of the training, but in reality, outside of guys in police or security, how many guys trained in martial arts do you find dishing out that kind of violence on the street? I'll guarantee that the first time it happens (and is caught on CCTV) and is deemed inappropriate you'll have every do-gooder in the country calling for RBSD to be banned. Yet in the meantime I'd be sure there would be hundreds of occasions where people with this type of training have defused a situation without a physical altercation.
Fighting is a very small part of 'self defence' and it is an equally small part of 'RBSD'.
Edit .. with my comment above with police and security, I didn't mean to imply they use excessive violence, just that your average martial artist has little need of his martial skills.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Nope!
It has now gotten to the stage where there are so many different brands of Krav Maga, it's hard to even trace some of their links back to Imi Lichtenfeld or even Israel, that there is very little of anything that is 'Krav', but that's a whole other discussion.
Okay, then, how about in the Krav Maga that you teach?
Okay… to me, that sounds like it's really up to the interpretation of the individual instructor, yeah?
Hmm… to be honest, that's not too dissimilar to many traditional systems… and, although it can be seen as more "realistic" (although I wouldn't necessarily class it that way… simply a different approach to structuring a lesson based on the individual, and differing sets of values between the systems), but that's not the same as "reality based"… I mean, reality based can also be done with pre-arranged drills, for the record… as well as obviously a range of other methods.
Yeah… again, not really a difference… nor really a definitive trait of RBSD methods… one of the points of kata is to give the tools to instinctively respond to what's happening around you, by giving you the particular skills and tactics to suit whatever you might come across.
Sure… but that's only going to be part of the story… and not even the primary part in most cases. I mean, if you look for videos of Rory Miller, for example, much of what you'll find will be not so much "kicking butt", as talking about a range of concepts and realities… and, even the clips you'll find of him physically, it won't be so much "kicking butt" as giving a physical response option. Same with Deane Lawler… Marc McYoung… much of Geoff Thompson's material is specific drills, rather than "kicking butt"… you won't see much from myself and my organisation either… especially on our RBSD side of things…
The point is that while RBSD can contain "kicking butt", but that in no way makes it what they're about… that's a distinction that needs to be understood.
Here's one guy's take on things:
Blitz Martial Arts bull View topic - My view on RBSD vs TMA long post
That ought to ensure this thread goes on for another 50 pages or so.
Blitz Martial Arts bull View topic - My view on RBSD vs TMA long post
That ought to ensure this thread goes on for another 50 pages or so.
I'm a bit late to this, but I'll toss in my .02.
IMHO, I'd say RBSD is the bare bones of Martial Arts. If we look at most arts, we'll see pretty much the same things: tradition, uniforms, kata, numerous stances, etc. This of course, is perfectly fine. As I've said a million times, everyone trains for their own reasons.
If we look at RBSD, we're most likely not going to see the same format of what we see in a TMA. We're probably not going to see the typical gi, no kata, not much, if any tradition...basically, the focus will be on fighting and SD. Probably rare that we see people standing in a stationary stance, throwing punches and kicks. Instead, it'll probably be more boxing oriented/MMA ish. You'll most likely see a well rounded program of all fighting ranges, including weapons.
I would say that the people you'll most likely see training in something like this, have a serious focus on SD. Quick, simple, effective things, that don't require a ton of memorization, practice, etc. This isn't to say that those students don't have to practice, but the mindset is different. Take the typical Kenpo school. 100+ techs, with various extensions on those techs. The RBSD place will most likely focus on a much more condensed list of things, that can be applied to various encounters.
Again, this isn't to bash TMAs. I know many people, myself included, that came from a TMA school or still train at one, and are more than capable of defending themselves. I'm simply saying that RBSD will give you the bare bones stuff, much quicker, and will most likely produce people who are capable of defending themselves, much faster.
Of course, but what they say, and what really is happening, are 2 different things. LOL.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Sure, that is part of the training, but in reality, outside of guys in police or security, how many guys trained in martial arts do you find dishing out that kind of violence on the street? I'll guarantee that the first time it happens (and is caught on CCTV) and is deemed inappropriate you'll have every do-gooder in the country calling for RBSD to be banned. Yet in the meantime I'd be sure there would be hundreds of occasions where people with this type of training have defused a situation without a physical altercation.
Fighting is a very small part of 'self defence' and it is an equally small part of 'RBSD'.
Edit .. with my comment above with police and security, I didn't mean to imply they use excessive violence, just that your average martial artist has little need of his martial skills.
yeah but that does not define a rbsd. I would have a different idea of what would be considered" focused on de escalation"than what i tend to see in a rbsd system.
have we pinned one down yet? I think jim Wagner was mentioned as the popularizer of the concept.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
ok so i just looked through the Tim Wagner link. Seeing as he apparently coined the term.
and that still reads like non sport hybrid. Why would Tim Wagner's system be a rbsd and not a combatives?
even zdk with the kata might squeak into that definition
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
when i say kicking butt i mean engaging in physical response. How to punch how to kick that sort of thing. Like pretty much all martial arts.
do you mean they have a focus on tactical over technical?
I did read it somewhere. It's about 4th or 5th generation and tailored for what you may encounter here. Unlike some styles, it makes no pretence of what it is.
Exactly. I teach the same to both groups. In my early days it was never mentioned, but back then we had what we used to call common sense and we didn't have lawyers standing on every street corner waiting to help the 'victim'.
May well be, but then I'm not the one trying to precisely define the term, mainly because I think it is an arbitrary definition. When we were trying to discuss TMAs vs whatever, it just didn't work because TMA as a concept is a very broad term. The OP, for reasons known only to himself, refused to define his concept of TMA so discussion became pointless. This is really the same. To really discuss RBSD you have to define it, which is really what Brian is asking us to do. Sort of like asking, "What is a Tree?" Many correct answers to that one and someone will always be able to come up with an example of something that doesn't fit the common conception of a 'tree'. If you wanted to discuss the "use of trees in contemporary architecture" it would be like herding cats. You have to have a precise definition to continue.
Now we have a term that may have been coined by Jim Wagner which had come into common usage to describe a system that in some ways may reflect a more military style of training.
In that light, RDSD is an individual concept. What you think it is, is probably within a cooee of what I think it is, but may be miles away from what other people think it is, and really, does that matter?
Now what I was trying to illustrate in my example before was a different methodology in training. In a more structured system you learn what you are being taught and you would not normally change that. In a Japanese style TMA I would call that the 'Shu' part of Shuhari. It doesn't matter that it will take 5 years to perfect. In a reality based style you wouldn't keep teaching a move that obviously wasn't going to work for someone. They require something that is going to work for them with minimal training.
I would also argue whether pre-arranged drills are 'reality based' or even 'realistic'. To me, they are drills that are part of the methodology of training. Again, like the 'Shu'. For me, prearranged drills are pretty useless until you get to the 'Ri' stage of training, a stage many will never reach. Another reason I don't teach a specific response to a specific attack.
I would agree to the first part, but to get to that level of usability normally takes much longer in a traditional setting.
The bit about kata I could debate all day, not because I disagree with what you are saying, but even a simple term like 'kata' requires definition because kata is different things to different people, another reason why people with no understanding of kata can make themselves look like complete idiots when they try to discuss the usefulness or otherwise of kata. But, again for me, learning from kata is a much longer term type of training than what I would expect to find in a system labelling itself 'reality based'.
Exactly! Which is why I have no hesitation in re-quoting it.
Perhaps it could be said RBSD should give you the ability to 'kick butt', but so too do other traditional systems if taught properly.
As soon as someone 'defines' RBSD others will disagree. Some will say it should include this and others will say it should exclude that. All we are every going to achieve is an understanding of others' concept of RBSD.
If anyone wants to discuss something in the context of RBSD they will really need to be precise in describing what RB means to them. Even then you can rest assured someone else will cut them down by not accepting that definition.
But I would argue that the techniques of de-escalation cross all boundaries. There is no difference in de-escalation in a situation on the door or on the street, regardless of your training background.
I might suggest there can be a significant overlap between RBSD and combatives. Combatives, to me, is something you are going to teach to the military and will certainly include lethal techniques which could well be employed in the execution of their duty. RBSD will normally include potentially lethal technique with the expectation that you will never have to use it.
ZDK, even with kata, is nowhere near that situation.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Which is probably why my Sanda shifu described his Sanda (Police/Military version) as "not the greatest or the best martial art but a way to learn how to hurt someone very badly"
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
when i look at de escalation it generally seems fairly primitive. There seems to be no structure to it.
say we compared it to sales. Which has similar tactics and aims. Their methods can be incredibly comprehensive.
Wrong. There is a structure to it. Don't get unnecessary get punched in the face, don't get bottled etc. You get to choose your ground
Similar threads
