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]
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.
