What Is Reality Based Self-Defense?

[K-man]

have you done door work? Or are you making assumptions again.

No, but I have trained some and trained with many. I've also detained quite a few shoplifters in my time and removed a number of trouble makers. Only three over thirty years turned to violence.

What I have worked from so I know what to teach is Geoff Thompson's material.

 

[drop bear]

No, but I have trained some and trained with many. I've also detained quite a few shoplifters in my time and removed a number of trouble makers. Only three over thirty years turned to violence.

What I have worked from so I know what to teach is Geoff Thompson's material.

So where do you get this idea that i am especially violent or cant de escalate.

Geoff Thompson got into fights and yet you use his material on de escalation.

 

[K-man]

So where do you get this idea that i am especially violent or cant de escalate.

Geoff Thompson got into fights and yet you use his material on de escalation.

Only from your posts. Initially I accepted what you claimed but since then you have pushed some ideas that are, frankly, unbelievable. But for the record the following is your recent effort on de-escalation that shows you really don't get it.

when i look at de escalation it generally seems fairly primitive. There seems to be no structure to it.

As to your use of violence ... I'm not going to trawl through your early posts but it seemed like you thought you might impress us if you were taking part in hundreds of fights on the street. You made the claim. I have mates who worked the pubs and clubs thirty or forty years ago who had numerous fights every night. These days, no. If you're having all those fights you're doing something wrong, or maybe you are gilding the lily.

 

[Chris Parker]

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.

Hey Mike,

Yeah… hate to say it, mate, but you're not describing RBSD there… the physical component may include something like boxing, or MMA like methods, or weapons… or it might not… it might have almost nothing particularly "physical" in it's methods at all… instead relying on previous training in more "traditional" systems… or in boxing, or MMA, or anything, really. Again, "realistic" in terms of physical violence handling methods, is not the same as "Reality Based Self Defence"…

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.

Er… okay… for the record, de-escalation can be (and is) a focus of RBSD systems, but is not "the" focus. That said… I have no idea what on earth you mean by this…

have we pinned one down yet? I think jim Wagner was mentioned as the popularizer of the concept.

Sixth time, then?

Jim Wagner was the guy who popularised the TERM… not the CONCEPT. There were others who were already doing that before him.

Okay?

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

"Jim", not "Tim"…

For the record, I have no idea what you mean, or refer to, when you say "non-sport hybrid"… that doesn't mean anything to me… but, if you mean a modern non-sporting system, okay… but the reason his system is an RBSD one, not a combatives one is that, well, it is an RBSD one. It contains combatives (and similar) methods… but also deals with a lot more, and is about risk awareness and minimalisation (the real core of RBSD) than just engaging an aggressor.

Zen Do Kai is really not part of the equation or discussion… nor is it related to either idea.

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.

I got that… but the reality is that not all RBSD's even match that description… many don't teach specific methods of punching or anything close to it… again, Deane Lawler's system really only has a particular cover that he teaches.. Senshido has many drills and teaching methods, but really dominantly focuses on one physical response (the "Shredder")… Geoff Thompson's approach deals with some basic methods taken from boxing and basic wrestling, but again focuses on drills over physical responses.

In other words, how to punch/kick is not really a major part of many RBSD systems… when and why is.

do you mean they have a focus on tactical over technical?

In a way, yeah. Mind you, I'd say that my martial arts are also tactical over technical… the biggest difference is what the tactical is designed for… and the context of the application of the 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.

Okay, so are you saying there was a specific "Krav Maga" (or, at least, one line/form of Krav Maga) verbal de-escalation method?

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'.

The problem, of course, is that a reasonable amount of de-escalation isn't really going to come under the purview of "common sense". And, to that end, you really are best served by having a specific, structured, educated, informed, and realistic approach to the concept… covering obviously the situations/culture you're dealing with (as you mention), as well as having various forms of options, and understanding social rules, while dealing with the various forms of "attacks" that can be encountered.

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.

Well, yes and no… sure, it's a broad categorisation, but it's also a particular one… same as TMA, or combatives, or even "sports systems". I mean, a frog isn't a tree, even if it's called a "tree frog"…

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.

Well, to give him his due, it was coined by Jim… but no, it doesn't refer to a "more military style of training"… that would be combatives… and that term goes back to Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate…

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?

Does it matter? Well, yeah, it does. Otherwise there's no point trying to discuss anything when people can just say "oh, that's not what I mean by the term". When it all comes down to it, RBSD is a specific term for a particular approach… people misusing the term doesn't change what it actually refers to, nor does any individual preference for usage. It means what it means, not anything else. What it means can encompass a wide variety of approaches, but in the end, if it isn't RBSD, it isn't RBSD… individual perceptions don't really enter into that.

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 got that… my point was more that what you were describing was not exactly uncommon in traditional systems as well… the "minimal training" thing is something separate, I feel, which will come down to the context and intended application, as well as the system itself.

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.

Hmm, I think we're operating on a different understanding of Shu-ha-ri here, my friend… but, to the first there, pre-arranged drills can be "reality based", or "realistic", or not… the fact that they're pre-arranged actually doesn't factor into that. And as far as not teaching specific responses, are you sure you're not? I mean, they might not be something that pre-existed before you showed them in that class, but if you're giving something as a response to an attack that the students are following, that's a specific response… it's not the only one, or the only possibility, of course… but it's still a specific response (in that moment). Or do you show ideas, and get the students to find whatever they might be able to get out of that? That's an approach I've seen (I'm honestly not fond of it, but some like it), so I'm just getting some clarification here…

I would agree to the first part, but to get to that level of usability normally takes much longer in a traditional setting.

Different forms and approaches to kata, my friend…

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'.

Sure, no argument here. That, again, comes down to context and intended application, of course.

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.

In cases, far more (and better) than RBSD systems…

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.

Well… isn't that kinda the point of the thread? To present a definition that is accurate, and inclusive of what RBSD actually encapsulates?

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's like a term such as Kenjutsu… that refers to combative uses of a sword (Japanese)… does it include short sword? It can. Does it include sword drawing? Sure, but not necessarily… and even then, it might be differentiated between it and the rest of the syllabus… Does it include other weapons? Again, it can. Are all Kenjutsu systems the same, with the same techniques, mechanics, specific syllabus, tactical approaches, strategic overviews, weapon lists etc? Nope. Does it include arts that don't use a sword at all? Well.. no.

Same with RBSD. 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.

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.

Actually, I'd say there can be quite a difference between them. As detailed earlier, different cultural considerations can change the specifics of de-escalation, so they don't even cross all boundaries when we simply keep it to "street".

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.

Hmm… sure, there can be some overlap… depending on the system. I'm not familiar with any RBSD system that really deals much with lethal methodologies, though… for the record…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Well, there's a hell of a lot of structure when I teach it… in fact, I have an entire syllabus for de-escalation, covering passive, active, verbal, physical, social and asocial contexts and assaults, different forms of "approach" (aggressive, "friendly", "sleazy", and so on), particular methods of recognising what approach is needed, how to switch when the aggressor changes tactics, when to switch, how to maintain physical distance, how to use physical distance, how to trigger a "flight" response, use of body language, reading of body language, recognition of escalation, when to escalate yourself, and so on.

Oh, and for the record, I've been in sales for a long time now… retail since 2007, family business for 11 years before that… and while there can be similarities, the differences are enormous. I'd never suggest that a salesman is also a good de-escalator in these situations… it's really quite a different set of skills, although both are based around effective communication (you might say).

Even from Jim Wagner's site I find these two quotes:

"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."
...
"We’ll teach you what few instructors are qualified to teach: defense against terrorist bombings and small arms attacks, criminal style stabbings, carjackings, drive-by shootings, kidnappings, sexual assault, armed robbery, criminal chemical attacks, gang violence, school and workplace massacres, child abductions, sniper attacks – just to name a few."

Honestly, the odds that a typical civilian in the U.S. is likely to personally encounter chemical attacks, sniper attacks, or a workplace massacre in their lifetime is not tremendously reality based. I think a good start to reality based training is to understand what dangers you are likely to actually encounter as opposed to which dangers have emotional salience due to dramatic news coverage.

Ha, as I said, Jim's real talent is for marketing… he knows how to tap into a market, in this case, by playing on fears…[/QUOTE]

 

[Chris Parker]

And, just to separate these ones out…

@Chris Parker

Yes I did say that and I was cautioned already for that and why you had to repeat it here is beyond me is it just to show what a great guy you are or what?

Why did I bring it up? Well, for one thing, I'm not privy to anything you may or may not have been cautioned about… only the Mod team and yourself would know that… but really, it was to get some kind of clarification from you… as noted, your posts are largely contradictory… saying that you'd rather avoid a situation, while at the same time saying "Well, they had it coming"… honestly, it comes across as if you're trying to present one image, but betraying another reality at the same time.

Anyway since all of our understanding seem to be wrong regarding RSBD then can you tell or say what is?

Kinda thought I had a few times already… hmm… you might want to go back to my first post in the thread…

If people just leave other people alone, do not steal, rob or hassle you then there should not be any problem. But if people steal, rob, hassle other people then be prepared for the consequences and they will have it coming and may even deserve it. That is all I meant.

Right… see, this is where the contradiction comes in… there's a certain vengeful, almost gleeful tone coming through there. I am hoping that that's not correct, of course.

Of course, the question is: who are you to say who "deserves" anything? Are you in law enforcement? The legal system? Or is this some sense of moral outrage at a perceived invasion of your sovereign person?

As much as possible I stay away from trouble less problem for me and for anyone else who might get involved.

Yeah… that's reading the same way…

And one more thing chris parker since you were brazen enough to mention that post for which I was cautioned for and it was actually deleted because it was against forum rules. What is your purpose in repeating it here?

Didn't you already ask that? I wasn't aware it was deleted, I didn't go looking for it… and I repeated it as you're saying you'd rather avoid a situation, yet in another post were happily engaging in one where the guy you were kicking wasn't posing a threat… which seemed rather contradictory.

Anyway you don't know me and I don't know you. So let us just keep it within the context of this thread. Thank you. If the moderators will not caution me I will be more than happy to talk about it again. I actually have no problem with that.
But as one of the moderators told me it is not allowed so why mention it?Should not the moderators caution you too?

Anyway......

Again, I wasn't aware it had been deleted. I can certainly see why they did, though. But no, the action wasn't what I was interested in… it was the contradictory messages in your post… which is what I actually asked about.

 

[tkdwarrior]

http://www.sammyfranco.com/reality-based-self-defense.html

I guess here is a good description of what RBSD is. Self explanatory.

 

[MJS]

Hey Mike,

Yeah… hate to say it, mate, but you're not describing RBSD there… the physical component may include something like boxing, or MMA like methods, or weapons… or it might not… it might have almost nothing particularly "physical" in it's methods at all… instead relying on previous training in more "traditional" systems… or in boxing, or MMA, or anything, really. Again, "realistic" in terms of physical violence handling methods, is not the same as "Reality Based Self Defence"…

Hi Chris,

Perhaps my wording wasn't the best. Let me try to clarify. My point in bringing up those things, ie: boxing, MMA, was simply because those are 2 arts that are trained very different from the typical TMA. I think this link is pretty good at explaining things that are most likely going to be seen in the RBSD setting, and not so much in a TMA setting. Yes, it's a description of various workshops offered, but it's the content that I'm referring to. I think you'd be hard pressed to walk into a TKD school, a Kyokushin school, and hear talk of verbal de-escalation, going over various de-escalation drills, scenario drills, etc. I trained Kenpo for over 20yrs, and it was rare that we'd train punches and kicks with tons of movement, other than during sparring. Think focus mitt training here.

I never said that RBSD training wouldn't stem from traditional training. I said that IMO, RBSD was the bare bones of TMA. I could take my time in Kenpo, strip the material down drastically, add in the missing pieces, ie: scenario drills, de-escalation drills, all the stuff that we saw in some of those RBSD videos posted on this thread, and turn Kenpo into RBSD.

As for the training itself...like I said, very different from what you'll find in a TMA dojo. All you have to do, is head over to YouTube, pull up a TKD or Kenpo clip, and compare that training, again, to any of the RBSD clips that were posted here, and you should see a big difference. You'll see a set of moves that can be trained in a variety of situations, compared to the typical Kenpo school, where you'll have 5+ techs for the same attack, with ever so slight differences.

 

[K-man]

Okay, so are you saying there was a specific "Krav Maga" (or, at least, one line/form of Krav Maga) verbal de-escalation method?

I have not seen any formal training of de-escalation in Krav. It is something that is 'mentioned in passing' in the material I have. What I teach is information I have accumulated over the years. What I was saying in the post was that IMHO there are a number of styles of Krav out there, many that claim to be the 'real' one, where in reality Krav has become a generic term. Actually, if you have formalised and structured training in that area I'd be interested in seeing it. Maybe it's time we met up for another coffee.

The problem, of course, is that a reasonable amount of de-escalation isn't really going to come under the purview of "common sense". And, to that end, you really are best served by having a specific, structured, educated, informed, and realistic approach to the concept… covering obviously the situations/culture you're dealing with (as you mention), as well as having various forms of options, and understanding social rules, while dealing with the various forms of "attacks" that can be encountered.

I suppose it depends on how much information people need. From my perspective most of the people I teach are not going out getting into fights. What I'm trying to get across to them is why it's not a good idea and what you can do to reduce the risk of it happening, occupational hazards excepted. To that end having a retired senior police officer as one of my senior guys is a great resource both for the pre and post conflict instruction.

Does it matter? Well, yeah, it does. Otherwise there's no point trying to discuss anything when people can just say "oh, that's not what I mean by the term". When it all comes down to it, RBSD is a specific term for a particular approach… people misusing the term doesn't change what it actually refers to, nor does any individual preference for usage. It means what it means, not anything else. What it means can encompass a wide variety of approaches, but in the end, if it isn't RBSD, it isn't RBSD… individual perceptions don't really enter into that.

This is what I'm getting at. We can define a term however you like but because people have different understanding of the term I doubt you'll ever have consensus. Even when you have a single world like 'paralyse' you get people misinterpreting the meaning. How much more complicated does it become when you string four word together? That's why I asked "does it matter". Let's accept that the term was coined by Jim Wagner. Along comes someone like Sammy Franco and puts up his definition of the term which is similar but still different. Geoff Thompson and others have done a similar thing. Laszlo Biro invented the first ballpoint pen and it was marketed under the Biro brand. Now, Biro is a generic term for a ballpoint pen of any brand. IMHO we can define RBSD however we like and there will still be fervent discussion.

Hmm, I think we're operating on a different understanding of Shu-ha-ri here, my friend… but, to the first there, pre-arranged drills can be "reality based", or "realistic", or not… the fact that they're pre-arranged actually doesn't factor into that. And as far as not teaching specific responses, are you sure you're not? I mean, they might not be something that pre-existed before you showed them in that class, but if you're giving something as a response to an attack that the students are following, that's a specific response… it's not the only one, or the only possibility, of course… but it's still a specific response (in that moment). Or do you show ideas, and get the students to find whatever they might be able to get out of that? That's an approach I've seen (I'm honestly not fond of it, but some like it), so I'm just getting some clarification here…

OK. As you often write, this could take some time.

As an example that can be demonstrated in class, and one that I have used in other posts. Make sure the guys are wearing head guards.

Start with a drill where the attacker comes in throwing a left right combination to the head and you provide a set response to that attack, other than a block. The reason I say that is, in real life a block stops an attack and precipitates the next. The next attack is totally random so you are immediately disadvantaged and chances are you will now instinctively block and may even be overcome. To me learning to block, then strike, is a flawed concept that is taught across the board. Not that it can't work but IMHO is very likely to end up with your **** on a plate if the attacker has any reasonable offensive skills.

So back to the drill. Drill it both sides. After a short time the defender should be reasonably proficient at managing that attack from either side. Now ask the attacker to come in using either left or right combination randomly. I'll guarantee that in most instances the defender will be punched in the face.

Now vary the drill slightly. Without the defender being aware instruct the attacker to drop the height of the second strike. Again the brain can't cope with that change and in most cases the second strike will go straight through.

Of course the reason this happens is because what we have is a reactive response and, unless you slow it right down, the strike will always be faster than a premeditated response.

Now, I am not for one moment saying not to do those drills. Train them and train them. I was interested to read another ill informed comment from the one with no formal training saying how joint locks were useless because they don't work in a real fight. Classic comment. The answer to both is the same. If you are trying to apply a particular lock or if you are trying to use a certain defensive combination in a real or even realistic environment, it will most likely fail unless you are big enough or strong enough to overpower your opponent.

What I am saying is, in a real situation, unless you are working with predictive response, a fight is total chaos. The way I explain it is, you must train to be able to handle attacks of any type from any direction at any time. That may involve you covering or instinctively blocking the attack until you recognise the position you are in and react instinctively to that situation. You work with what you are given. It is often stated as, "learn the technique, drill the technique, forget the technique." Only then can you use the technique.

Not sure if that is what you are referring to but it is in essence the way I look at it.

Different forms and approaches to kata, my friend…

Exactly. Kata is another generic term with different meaning in different styles. What it is is a method of transferring information. If we used the analogy of a book it could be anything from a detailed technical instruction manual to a book with an introductory description at the top and the rest of the page left for your personal notes. It could be a book where one page follows the previous page or it could be a 'pick a path' variety where the order of the pages is determined by the reader. Others may look at kata as an encyclopaedia of terms.

What it isn't is a type of training that is the same across all styles and that is why we have such opinionated debate when kata is termed useless by people who have no detailed understanding of what kata is and how it varies in its application.

Well… isn't that kinda the point of the thread? To present a definition that is accurate, and inclusive of what RBSD actually encapsulates?

It is the point of the thread, but I fear we will not reach consensus. All I'm saying is we can define the term however we like. We could even take the definition that you provided above. It changes nothing. People will still debate what is and what isn't RBSD.

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'.

'Broad' being the operative word. As a result, I still believe when people wish to discuss RBSD, they will still have to define the context. It becomes rather pointless when someone says "A,B,C" in a RBSD discussion and someone else says "that isn't RBSD". It doesn't matter if it is not RBSD according to the strict definition. What matters is the discussion provided in the context provided by the OP.

Same with RBSD. 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.

Exactly, and that is why it becomes virtually impossible to provide a catch all definition.

Hmm… sure, there can be some overlap… depending on the system. I'm not familiar with any RBSD system that really deals much with lethal methodologies, though… for the record…

Surely lethal depends on how far you take a particular technique. Whether you would ever consider using that technique in a real situation is another discussion. Krav for example does teach weapon disarms, then to use that weapon if required. Same with Systema. So within your definition those systems become combatives. I prefer to just call it overlap. If you are travelling overseas in some of the more lawless areas I can imagine those skills could be beneficial. There are other situations where I would see lethal use of force could be justified, not necessarily optimal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Still sufficiently loose to provide decades of debate on MT.

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

But RBSD still includes "the fight" and if you get to that stage I would say it is still the most important part. When all else fails .... !

 

[drop bear]

Only from your posts. Initially I accepted what you claimed but since then you have pushed some ideas that are, frankly, unbelievable. But for the record the following is your recent effort on de-escalation that shows you really don't get it.
As to your use of violence ... I'm not going to trawl through your early posts but it seemed like you thought you might impress us if you were taking part in hundreds of fights on the street. You made the claim. I have mates who worked the pubs and clubs thirty or forty years ago who had numerous fights every night. These days, no. If you're having all those fights you're doing something wrong, or maybe you are gilding the lily.

de escalation as compared to the effort put into sales training is primitive.

you would not accept logic or evidence. You only accept an appeal to authority. And i have the self defence experience you don't.

all true. I have been doing this for a while now and you are again commenting on something you don't understand.

 

[K-man]

And i have the self defence experience you don't.

all true. I have been doing this for a while now and you are again commenting on something you don't understand.

Really?

Are we having a pissing competition now? I started with boxing in the 50s, a little judo in the 60s, dabbled with karate in the 70s, took it up seriously in the 80s. Took to Systema and Krav after 2000 plus studied Okinawan karate including Kyusho almost full time as well as starting my own school. I have been learning Aikido continuously for the past 8 years. Along with that I dabbled with a little Escrima, Chin Na, Dim-Mak and grappling.

So let's put up or shut up! Exactly what is it I don't understand?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Folks, let's keep the conversation on topic, adult, professional, and polite please.
It's fine to attack the message. It's not fine to attack the messenger.
If you just can't get along with someone, use the ignore button.
I think it's safe to say that everyone on the mod team would rather be talking about martial arts (that is why we all joined this forum) than acting as a playground monitor.
Please. Have pity on the staff. Play nice.

 

[drop bear]

Really?

Are we having a pissing competition now? I started with boxing in the 50s, a little judo in the 60s, dabbled with karate in the 70s, took it up seriously in the 80s. Took to Systema and Krav after 2000 plus studied Okinawan karate including Kyusho almost full time as well as starting my own school. I have been learning Aikido continuously for the past 8 years. Along with that I dabbled with a little Escrima, Chin Na, Dim-Mak and grappling.

So let's put up or shut up! Exactly what is it I don't understand?

why there is violence in the security industry. And whether or not a person can de escalate based on their posts.

there is an image of the industry that does not reflect the reality of the job.

 

[K-man]

why there is violence in the security industry. And whether or not a person can de escalate based on their posts.

there is an image of the industry that does not reflect the reality of the job.

OK. So you obviously aren't going to detail your training background and I assume you barely comprehensible reply is suggesting I don't understand why there is violence in the security industry. Really?

And then I don't understand that someone can de-escalate based on their posts. Well based on their posts I would suggest that there are many guys on MT who are well qualified in that area and based on their posts I believe them.

So why would I question your ability to de-escalate? Well first you are very aggressive. You have had hundreds of street fights, you told us that in earlier posts. You have told us that de-escalation techniques are much less than sales training showing you don't have any training in that area.
Your communication skills are deplorable. Most people here can't understand what you are saying. You have stated that you enjoy baiting people like ballen and you seem to enjoy confrontation. Not one of those things points at someone with the people skills to de-escalate anything.

Then you finish off by stating that the image of the industry doesn't reflect the reality of the job. Well first let me tell you what I think is the image of the industry. I know a large number of guys who work in security. The industry has gone to enormous lengths to clean up its image. These days there is far more emphasis on identifying potential problems before they get out of hand, there is much more emphasis on de-escalation and there is more training in the techniques of removing non-compliant, troublesome, patrons without causing injury. There is also the recognition that security staff are just that, staff, and as such they represent the business, so how they behave is important to that business. How's that for starters?

Now let's look at what you have told us. You've had very little training in de-escalation and you have had hundreds of fights ... and I'm the one who doesn't understand. Hmm.

But this takes us back to the OP. What is RBSD? Working in security is a job, nothing to do with self defence, reality based or otherwise. Why have you introduced this into the thread?

 

[Chris Parker]

http://www.sammyfranco.com/reality-based-self-defense.html

I guess here is a good description of what RBSD is. Self explanatory.

Overall, yeah, Sammy's description is pretty much it… he confuses the issue by stating that "It's all about learning how to fight", as that's not correct, and directly contradicts pretty much everything else he writes in his description (that there is emphasis on pre and post fight aspects, de-escalation, use of force, legal realities, psychological aspects, moral and emotional realities, and so on). I'm curious as to what you see that you refer to as "self explanatory" there.

Hi Chris,

Hey Mike,

Perhaps my wording wasn't the best. Let me try to clarify. My point in bringing up those things, ie: boxing, MMA, was simply because those are 2 arts that are trained very different from the typical TMA.

But, frankly, far closer to TMA training than RBSD training… that was my point. Unlike one is not like to another...

I think this link is pretty good at explaining things that are most likely going to be seen in the RBSD setting, and not so much in a TMA setting. Yes, it's a description of various workshops offered, but it's the content that I'm referring to. I think you'd be hard pressed to walk into a TKD school, a Kyokushin school, and hear talk of verbal de-escalation, going over various de-escalation drills, scenario drills, etc.

Ha, well, yeah… Senshido is very much an RBSD system… Richard Dmitri has been at the forefront of the RBSD "movement" for a while now, and I've mentioned him, his group, and his successor a number of times in this thread alone as a reference point to what RBSD is…

And, of course, I completely agree… this is a big part of the distinction I've been trying to get across… but none of that makes any of it like a "boxing oriented or MMA-ish".

I trained Kenpo for over 20yrs, and it was rare that we'd train punches and kicks with tons of movement, other than during sparring. Think focus mitt training here.

Sorry, not following here… are you comparing drilling methods between systems? Drills with movement don't necessarily make something RBSD… although it's more likely that they'll take that form there… as we have a range of such in the martial arts side of things…

I never said that RBSD training wouldn't stem from traditional training. I said that IMO, RBSD was the bare bones of TMA. I could take my time in Kenpo, strip the material down drastically, add in the missing pieces, ie: scenario drills, de-escalation drills, all the stuff that we saw in some of those RBSD videos posted on this thread, and turn Kenpo into RBSD.

Sure… but, to be frank, the Kenpo factor is the least important there… you could do that with any physical combative system… and turning Kenpo into an RBSD approach takes it away from being Kenpo… in the end, it just becomes a Kenpo based, or influenced, RBSD system.

As for the training itself...like I said, very different from what you'll find in a TMA dojo. All you have to do, is head over to YouTube, pull up a TKD or Kenpo clip, and compare that training, again, to any of the RBSD clips that were posted here, and you should see a big difference. You'll see a set of moves that can be trained in a variety of situations, compared to the typical Kenpo school, where you'll have 5+ techs for the same attack, with ever so slight differences.

I'm in agreement with everything up until the last sentence there, my friend… odds are that you aren't really going to see "a set of moves" at all in an RBSD approach… depending on the group, and what exactly you're watching, of course…

 

[Chris Parker]

I have not seen any formal training of de-escalation in Krav. It is something that is 'mentioned in passing' in the material I have. What I teach is information I have accumulated over the years. What I was saying in the post was that IMHO there are a number of styles of Krav out there, many that claim to be the 'real' one, where in reality Krav has become a generic term. Actually, if you have formalised and structured training in that area I'd be interested in seeing it. Maybe it's time we met up for another coffee.

Okay, cool, that's what I was expecting to hear. With regards to our structured approach, sure… I'm not about to get into it publicly here (it's still our intellectual property, after all…), but I'm happy to give you some ideas of what we do in person. Other than that, I can invite you along should we cover it at a workshop or similar again in the near future… you really should have been at one September a year back… that was quite a good day!

I suppose it depends on how much information people need. From my perspective most of the people I teach are not going out getting into fights. What I'm trying to get across to them is why it's not a good idea and what you can do to reduce the risk of it happening, occupational hazards excepted. To that end having a retired senior police officer as one of my senior guys is a great resource both for the pre and post conflict instruction.

Sure… but risk management and avoidance strategies (which is more what you're referring to there) isn't the same as de-escalation… that's something that's applied when you're in the early stages of an actual situation, and are past the avoidance opportunities… which is the context and stage you find yourself in when de-escalation is required.

This is what I'm getting at. We can define a term however you like but because people have different understanding of the term I doubt you'll ever have consensus. Even when you have a single world like 'paralyse' you get people misinterpreting the meaning. How much more complicated does it become when you string four word together? That's why I asked "does it matter". Let's accept that the term was coined by Jim Wagner. Along comes someone like Sammy Franco and puts up his definition of the term which is similar but still different. Geoff Thompson and others have done a similar thing. Laszlo Biro invented the first ballpoint pen and it was marketed under the Biro brand. Now, Biro is a generic term for a ballpoint pen of any brand. IMHO we can define RBSD however we like and there will still be fervent discussion.

A consensus isn't needed, honestly. What is needed is an understanding of the context of the applied term… to take the "paralyse" situation from the other thread, Dirty Dog was applying the term in a medical, clinical context, whereas drop bear was talking more about causing the opponent to stop what they're doing (stop attacking), both mentally and physically… in essence, "paralysing" their forward movement, even if only momentarily.

Again, it comes down to RBSD being a particular method/approach to the concept of self defence, which can be expressed in a number of ways… but the core definition/meaning of RBSD doesn't change. Again, think of my Kenjutsu analogy… there are literally dozens, if not hundreds of Kenjutsu systems, which will share some commonality (they all teach the combative use of a sword, for instance), but even in that, the variations are boundless. That doesn't mean that Kenjutsu defies classification, as it's too broad… just that a broad definition can still be applied without contravening the variety that exists.

OK. As you often write, this could take some time.

Ha! Cool.

As an example that can be demonstrated in class, and one that I have used in other posts. Make sure the guys are wearing head guards.

Start with a drill where the attacker comes in throwing a left right combination to the head and you provide a set response to that attack, other than a block. The reason I say that is, in real life a block stops an attack and precipitates the next. The next attack is totally random so you are immediately disadvantaged and chances are you will now instinctively block and may even be overcome. To me learning to block, then strike, is a flawed concept that is taught across the board. Not that it can't work but IMHO is very likely to end up with your **** on a plate if the attacker has any reasonable offensive skills.

So, leaving off the "block/no block" idea (that's something that we might cover at a later point…), you're saying that you start with a "set response", yeah? Cool, that's (again) what I was expecting.

So back to the drill. Drill it both sides. After a short time the defender should be reasonably proficient at managing that attack from either side. Now ask the attacker to come in using either left or right combination randomly. I'll guarantee that in most instances the defender will be punched in the face.

Now vary the drill slightly. Without the defender being aware instruct the attacker to drop the height of the second strike. Again the brain can't cope with that change and in most cases the second strike will go straight through.

Of course the reason this happens is because what we have is a reactive response and, unless you slow it right down, the strike will always be faster than a premeditated response.

Okay… to me, there are issues with that drill, unless you're intending it to show the perceived flaw you're mentioning at the end there, yeah? I guess my question is, in which part of my quote is this a response to? I'm a little lost here…

Now, I am not for one moment saying not to do those drills. Train them and train them. I was interested to read another ill informed comment from the one with no formal training saying how joint locks were useless because they don't work in a real fight. Classic comment. The answer to both is the same. If you are trying to apply a particular lock or if you are trying to use a certain defensive combination in a real or even realistic environment, it will most likely fail unless you are big enough or strong enough to overpower your opponent.

Okay, so it's a drill to try to demonstrate… something… but not something you'd advise, although you're not saying not to do them? Yeah… still a little lost here, mate…

That said, I agree that going in, looking for a particular lock etc is a recipe for failure.

What I am saying is, in a real situation, unless you are working with predictive response, a fight is total chaos. The way I explain it is, you must train to be able to handle attacks of any type from any direction at any time. That may involve you covering or instinctively blocking the attack until you recognise the position you are in and react instinctively to that situation. You work with what you are given. It is often stated as, "learn the technique, drill the technique, forget the technique." Only then can you use the technique.

Not sure if that is what you are referring to but it is in essence the way I look at it.

Okay, was this all about the Shu-Ha-Ri concept, then? Yeah… it's a lot more than that… and, in a way, nothing mentioned here really goes beyond "Shu" anyway… to be honest… as it's really not anything to do with "ways" of drilling things…

Exactly. Kata is another generic term with different meaning in different styles. What it is is a method of transferring information. If we used the analogy of a book it could be anything from a detailed technical instruction manual to a book with an introductory description at the top and the rest of the page left for your personal notes. It could be a book where one page follows the previous page or it could be a 'pick a path' variety where the order of the pages is determined by the reader. Others may look at kata as an encyclopaedia of terms.

What it isn't is a type of training that is the same across all styles and that is why we have such opinionated debate when kata is termed useless by people who have no detailed understanding of what kata is and how it varies in its application.

Hmm, I'd suggest that kata (itself) is actually a fairly definite term in a way… it's particular to a culture, fairly loaded with meaning (from that culture), and, while it has a range of ways it can be expressed, it is always, at it's heart, the same thing.

There's a big difference between a pre-arranged sequence of actions and a kata, is what I'm saying…

It is the point of the thread, but I fear we will not reach consensus. All I'm saying is we can define the term however we like. We could even take the definition that you provided above. It changes nothing. People will still debate what is and what isn't RBSD.

I guess my biggest issue with arguing about definitions is that, oftentimes, the arguments are coming from persons who don't know what the terms actually mean in the first place… so they're arguing about what they think they mean, rather than what they actually do. I'm only concerned with what they actually mean. Frankly, other opinions couldn't mean less to me in this regard.

'Broad' being the operative word. As a result, I still believe when people wish to discuss RBSD, they will still have to define the context. It becomes rather pointless when someone says "A,B,C" in a RBSD discussion and someone else says "that isn't RBSD". It doesn't matter if it is not RBSD according to the strict definition. What matters is the discussion provided in the context provided by the OP.

Well, yes and no… the issue with that approach is that you end up discussing anything but RBSD, as no-one really even takes what it is on board in the first place. You might as well talk about methods of training dogs, and have someone talking about how tigers learn in the wild, saying that they aren't beholden to the strict definition of "dog" or "training"… the discussion can't actually be what it's supposed to be about.

Exactly, and that is why it becomes virtually impossible to provide a catch all definition.

Hmm… no… it's an argument as to why it's essential to have one in the first place.

Surely lethal depends on how far you take a particular technique.

That'll depend, really… in many cases, it's a matter of intent, which then leads you towards more or less "lethal" techniques… but that's getting a little off topic here…

Whether you would ever consider using that technique in a real situation is another discussion. Krav for example does teach weapon disarms, then to use that weapon if required. Same with Systema. So within your definition those systems become combatives. I prefer to just call it overlap. If you are travelling overseas in some of the more lawless areas I can imagine those skills could be beneficial. There are other situations where I would see lethal use of force could be justified, not necessarily optimal.

Well, I'd class them as Combatives systems as they are military based, and fit the hallmarks that would be expected. I mean, my systems include weapon defence and disarmament, followed by using the weapon against the opponent… but that doesn't make them "Combatives" systems, as the context, origin, aims, and more don't fit such hallmarks.

And yeah, sometimes Combatives approaches are a better "civilian" option… of course, most areas where that's the case are largely military-controlled, or militarised areas in the first place…

Still sufficiently loose to provide decades of debate on MT.

Ha, I do what I can…

But RBSD still includes "the fight" and if you get to that stage I would say it is still the most important part. When all else fails .... !

Sure… but it's only the most important part in that moment. And that's only so you can survive to get to the "post fight" stage.

 

[MJS]

Hey Mike,



But, frankly, far closer to TMA training than RBSD training… that was my point. Unlike one is not like to another...

So, in your opinion, the way a boxer or someone who does MMA, doesn't move, apply their strikes, in the same fashion as someone who does RBSD? Looking at some clips out there, the punching I see doesn't look like what I've seen in many TMA dojos. Sure, they may be the same punches, but the application is different. For example:

Ha, well, yeah… Senshido is very much an RBSD system… Richard Dmitri has been at the forefront of the RBSD "movement" for a while now, and I've mentioned him, his group, and his successor a number of times in this thread alone as a reference point to what RBSD is…

And, of course, I completely agree… this is a big part of the distinction I've been trying to get across… but none of that makes any of it like a "boxing oriented or MMA-ish".

OK. See my post above.

Sorry, not following here… are you comparing drilling methods between systems? Drills with movement don't necessarily make something RBSD… although it's more likely that they'll take that form there… as we have a range of such in the martial arts side of things…

Yes, that's what I'm doing. I'm sure you've seen both a TMA class and a RBSD class. Do they look anything alike?

Sure… but, to be frank, the Kenpo factor is the least important there… you could do that with any physical combative system… and turning Kenpo into an RBSD approach takes it away from being Kenpo… in the end, it just becomes a Kenpo based, or influenced, RBSD system.

LOL, well of course, and I used Kenpo simply as an example. I'm sure you can insert pretty much any art. Hell, we can use the Bujinkan. Do you personally teach your classes the way the typical Bujinkan class is taught?

I'm in agreement with everything up until the last sentence there, my friend… odds are that you aren't really going to see "a set of moves" at all in an RBSD approach… depending on the group, and what exactly you're watching, of course…

OK.

 

[Transk53]

why there is violence in the security industry. And whether or not a person can de escalate based on their posts.

there is an image of the industry that does not reflect the reality of the job.

Er, because we are for it. The trick is we do not look for it. Fine, if it seeks and then finds us with absolute intent, then we will deal with it. We are not there to start a fight. Suggest you start to speak from experience, a bouncer (okay I said it) would not be asking that question, one should know

 

[drop bear]

OK. So you obviously aren't going to detail your training background and I assume you barely comprehensible reply is suggesting I don't understand why there is violence in the security industry. Really?

And then I don't understand that someone can de-escalate based on their posts. Well based on their posts I would suggest that there are many guys on MT who are well qualified in that area and based on their posts I believe them.

So why would I question your ability to de-escalate? Well first you are very aggressive. You have had hundreds of street fights, you told us that in earlier posts. You have told us that de-escalation techniques are much less than sales training showing you don't have any training in that area.
Your communication skills are deplorable. Most people here can't understand what you are saying. You have stated that you enjoy baiting people like ballen and you seem to enjoy confrontation. Not one of those things points at someone with the people skills to de-escalate anything.

Then you finish off by stating that the image of the industry doesn't reflect the reality of the job. Well first let me tell you what I think is the image of the industry. I know a large number of guys who work in security. The industry has gone to enormous lengths to clean up its image. These days there is far more emphasis on identifying potential problems before they get out of hand, there is much more emphasis on de-escalation and there is more training in the techniques of removing non-compliant, troublesome, patrons without causing injury. There is also the recognition that security staff are just that, staff, and as such they represent the business, so how they behave is important to that business. How's that for starters?

Now let's look at what you have told us. You've had very little training in de-escalation and you have had hundreds of fights ... and I'm the one who doesn't understand. Hmm.

But this takes us back to the OP. What is RBSD? Working in security is a job, nothing to do with self defence, reality based or otherwise. Why have you introduced this into the thread?

because i de escalate for a living against real people who want to hurt me. And that dedicated training in de escalation is generally terrible.

to achieve the hundreds of fights i have attempted to de escalate tens of thousands. Only a small percentage result in violence.

So your conclusions are wrong due to your lack of practical knowledge.

 

[drop bear]

Er, because we are for it. The trick is we do not look for it. Fine, if it seeks and then finds us with absolute intent, then we will deal with it. We are not there to start a fight. Suggest you start to speak from experience, a bouncer (okay I said it) would not be asking that question, one should know

No the accusation laid is if you get into fights then obviously you cant avoid them. In the industry i get this a lot. The expectation that i can magic people out of a venue.

And that is not always the case.

 

[Transk53]

No the accusation laid is if you get into fights then obviously you cant avoid them. In the industry i get this a lot. The expectation that i can magic people out of a venue.

And that is not always the case.

Of course not, but one should strive to make it that way. The former is just paraphrasing me.