What Is Reality Based Self-Defense?

[drop bear]

Probably less than ten per cent. And it would depend where i worked. The high violence venues got old pretty quick.

 

[Chris Parker]

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:

Well… yeah, I am. But of course, it's not that simple…

The first thing to remember is that, really, it's almost impossible to find someone who is just "RBSD"… it's more an approach to training that can be (and is) applied to any number of other (primarily combative) systems… which means that, by necessity, RBSD systems "fighting" aspect will always draw from other mechanical methods. And yeah, that can certainly include boxing… or look somewhat "MMA-ish"… but that's not the same thing.

The question you have to ask is why many of the RBSD systems look more like boxing… and the reason, fairly simply, is that, particularly in the Western zeitgeist, boxing is dominant in our image of violence. It has become so pervasive in our imagery that it has become the "standard" form of what is seen, whether the persons involved have any training or background at all… they will still look like "boxers" to a fair degree.

Additionally, as it's such a common expression, it can easily serve as a "common language" for bringing together practitioners from disparate approaches. When it comes to the video above, a few things to keep in mind… one is that I've trained with Deane… what's being shown up there is part of his "street combatives" approach (street fighting/protection), not his RBSD methodology (they are separate)… so looking to it as an example of "RBSD fighting methods" doesn't really work. Additionally, part of Deane's background is his boxing training… so it's natural that he'd design something around that… other RBSD instructors have other backgrounds, which lead them to different expressions.

Finally, of course, although there is a range of technical methods similar to what is seen in boxing, it's really not that similar past simple superficial aspects. Deane actually makes a number of comments pointing out the distinction between what he's showing, and a "boxing" approach. Tactically, it's quite different… distance-wise, it's quite different (focused on in-fighting only)… time-wise, it's quite different… even mechanically there are differences… what's "available" is different… and so on.

So yeah, there is quite a difference between the way a boxer does things, or the way an MMA athlete does things, and the way things are done in RBSD systems.

OK. See my post above.

Likewise.

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?

Mike, it may help to remember that I teach both TMA and RBSD… in the same class. As separate sections. So, when I'm talking about what RBSD is, and what TMA's are, I'm not making guesses… this is what I do.

As far as "do they look anything alike", well, that depends on what you're looking for… our traditional methods do inform our modern (RBSD) approach to a large degree… in everything from mechanical and technical approaches, to tactical concepts, principles, and more. I can identify a lot of our TMA approach in our RBSD methods… but that's to be expected, as I'm teaching both at the same time (well, separate sections of the class, but to the same group within the same class structure). Of course, it's just as easy to point out differences… the essence of our postural concepts are the same, but the expression is very different… same with the striking, same with the grappling, and so on. And, of course, the RBSD side is a lot more than the combative engagement… which is very different to the TMA side of things.

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?

Ha, I certainly hope not!

Hmm… maybe that was a bit harsh… but no, my TMA side of things, although largely the same syllabus, is done is a rather different fashion to the Bujinkan classes I've attended over the years… and I haven't seen anything close to what we do in the RBSD side of things, to be honest. I'm not sure what that has to do with the comment, though…

OK.

Sure. But in simplifying the concept of SD one flows from one to the other.

Well, yeah, there's overlap to a degree… but not so much. De-escalation is needed when the awareness/risk management side has failed, and gone past… I don't know that I'd refer to that as "flowing from one to the other"… as much as worsening sets of conditions as you progress.

Yeah, but I'm not convinced DB recognises the difference and at the very least he was using loose terminology. His description pretty much implied that as soon as the trachea was grabbed a person would 'freeze', again a similar concept. No trained person is going to react that way no matter however you want to describe it.

Well, the first thing to look at is whether or not it's being applied against a "trained" person… but, I have to say, I am far more on drop bear's side there… I'm not sure he worded it as well as it could have been, and the use of the term "paralysed", when Dirty Dog was applying it in a clinical/medical fashion, was something that went on longer than it needed to… but the reality is that, yeah, when you suddenly attack someone's airways (threaten their air supply), the initial, instinctive response is to stop what else you were doing, and focus on the new threat… which does, mentally at least, "paralyse" them for a moment or two. It's not a long-term thing, but it is what happens. We teach the same thing, and I've personally applied it myself.

Honestly, in this case, he was right, in essence. "Freeze"… maybe not… but the reaction would be the equivalent of it.

Something someone else wrote:

Putting things into categories can be useful, but we have to remember that categories are usually artificial.

Hmm… it's an interesting quote… I'd prefer to see it in context. The only usage I can find is on a forum by a poster in a discussion of whether or not Ebola (or any virus, really) is "alive" or not… and the level of discourse there didn't exactly thrill me (the terms used, including the name of the forum and the poster using the quote, would trip the filters here I feel… so I'm not linking it)… but let's look at what it actually is.

The quote is in relation to scientific categorisation, and pointing out that the strict adherence to exclusionary categories can have issues when some items seem to possess traits of different categories… or simply not fit neatly into one or another. That's all well and good… but is, in a real way, the opposite of the point I was making. The form of categorisation I was using was less exclusionary, and was rather largely inclusive of a wide array of variations… however, for the category to have any meaning, there must be certain requirements. Those requirements are not at the exclusion of other aspects, but were instead picked to give more of a "bare minimum", combined with the most common and easily identifiable traits.

So, interesting quote, but not sure that it actually applies.

Only for the purpose of the exercise. I just wasn't being specific in what the response should be as different people will train different responses. I would normally train it with a likely/realistic response rather than an artificially contrived one.

Sure, and my point was more that set responses are required, at the very least as a "jumping off" point. Of course, there's nothing in the idea of set responses that restricts, or denies the usage of a likely or realistic response… or that they have to be "artificially contrived". I'm not sure why you might think that they would have to be, really.

Yes, I am pointing out the flaw in the drill but it is the type of drilling you will see in most places.

Really? I don't see that type of flaw being deliberately presented in many places… in fact, it kinda seems to go against productive drills. I do see drills trained to the point of failure, and that's an approach I agree with… but deliberately doing it so that the techniques don't work… that one's lost on me.

I was expanding on:

Okay...

I'm suggesting that drills are fine as long as people understand why they are drilling. Some styles have hundreds of drills so that every possible attack is covered. The problem arises when the attack is varied, so I don't have any set drills. We used to call them 'pre-arranged sparring', one of the many things I abandoned some years back.

Yeah… honestly, I'm not seeing varied attacks as a flaw in the drilling, if anything, if that presents a problem, it's the lack of awareness of what the drills are teaching, not the drilling methodology itself...

Yet you will read time after time someone who can't use them declaring that they don't work. If you look deeper I would be sure that in most instances they are attempting to move to that technique from the wrong start point, something you could only do with brute force.

Probably. There are other possibilities, but it amounts to the same thing.

No. Shuhari was in a different context. As you say, what I was describing would only be 'Shu'.

Cool.

Interesting that you qualified your response, "in a way". That's exactly what I was saying. The terminology is the same but the meaning can vary between styles. For example my kata has no set interpretation as it is a single person sequence of techniques. The application of those techniques is up to the individual as the original meaning of the kata was never passed down, if indeed it ever existed. I have never seen your kata but from what you have written in the past I am assuming that with your two man kata the meaning is evident.

Ha, you have seen some of my kata, for the record… I just didn't identify them for you (and, honestly, was giving variations anyway…)

But, to the main… look, to be honest, I only used the qualifier "in a way" to soften the message… frankly, all kata are, at their heart, the same, with the same ideals, aims, and place in a system that uses them… the only real difference is in the expression of how kata is presented in the systems.

Oh, and with our paired kata, and the meaning being evident… not as much as you might think… just so you know… ha!

Sure.

So we agree there… cool.

Again, true. But it is very difficult to produce a definition that is water tight. If we could do that a billion lawyers would suddenly be without a vocation.

Possibly…. but not necessarily, to be honest. Some things can be defined quite clearly… others can be a bit more vague, but the heart of the definition (which is what I've been addressing) is still very much the core of the issue.

Read any thread on MT. How long does it take before one of the dogs grabs it and tries to run off with it? Some people are set in their ways and will never take anything on board. Oh what bliss, to know that your cup is always full.

Eh, again, opinions not based in knowledge and understanding of the topic don't really matter much to me… and yeah, I know how that sounds… but hey, it's also the way it is.

The arguement is valid, the outcome somewhat different. Achieving a definition that is acceptable to all is only a remote possibility.

Yeah… again, acceptable to all isn't what I'm concerned with...

Yes, but ...
Your weapon systems are integral to your traditional training in the same way that I would say weapons are integral in a combatives system. In RBSD the use of weapons has to be addressed. How it is treated causes the overlap.

Sure… but the emphasis is a big thing to consider as well.

Without learning to fight you may not reach the "post fight" stage in any meaningful way. So I would still argue that although all the elements of RBSD are important, the ability to physically take care of yourself is your insurance policy when the other bits have failed.

I can see that… of course, that doesn't change the way RBSD systems are structured and designed, or their emphasis… in many cases, they will tell you to go for a combatives or martial art system to cover that aspect.

Are you proposing these as a common understanding of the terms?

In a way, yes. Unless you (or anyone else) can find an argument against them.

 

[K-man]

Well, the first thing to look at is whether or not it's being applied against a "trained" person… but, I have to say, I am far more on drop bear's side there… I'm not sure he worded it as well as it could have been, and the use of the term "paralysed", when Dirty Dog was applying it in a clinical/medical fashion, was something that went on longer than it needed to… but the reality is that, yeah, when you suddenly attack someone's airways (threaten their air supply), the initial, instinctive response is to stop what else you were doing, and focus on the new threat… which does, mentally at least, "paralyse" them for a moment or two. It's not a long-term thing, but it is what happens. We teach the same thing, and I've personally applied it myself.

Honestly, in this case, he was right, in essence. "Freeze"… maybe not… but the reaction would be the equivalent of it.

I'm not suggesting you can't use the technique. In subsequent posts DB finally described the choke he was referring to as grabbing the trachea. Certainly it's going to get your attention and you might even get a momentary freeze, but a trained person is going to deal with it pretty quickly unless the person attacking is actually trying to crush the trachea, potentially lethal. Even then I would suggest the the technique I teach against it would work quickly and effectively in the time taken to consolidate the grip.

Hmm… it's an interesting quote… I'd prefer to see it in context. The only usage I can find is on a forum by a poster in a discussion of whether or not Ebola (or any virus, really) is "alive" or not… and the level of discourse there didn't exactly thrill me (the terms used, including the name of the forum and the poster using the quote, would trip the filters here I feel… so I'm not linking it)… but let's look at what it actually is.

So, interesting quote, but not sure that it actually applies.

I only included it as a quote because I didn't write it. It doesn't need a context. All I was getting at is that even when you categorise your are using some form of criteria to determine what will be included. Others can agree or disagree and that is the problem we will normally encounter.

Sure, and my point was more that set responses are required, at the very least as a "jumping off" point. Of course, there's nothing in the idea of set responses that restricts, or denies the usage of a likely or realistic response… or that they have to be "artificially contrived". I'm not sure why you might think that they would have to be, really.

I think you are reading far more into what I wrote than was intended. By set response I wanted a response that was firstly a part of normal training and one that could be reasonably expected to be used in a real situation rather than making something up for the point of the exercise.

Really? I don't see that type of flaw being deliberately presented in many places… in fact, it kinda seems to go against productive drills. I do see drills trained to the point of failure, and that's an approach I agree with… but deliberately doing it so that the techniques don't work… that one's lost on me.

You were the one who introduce 'flaw'. I thought I understood what you were saying but obviously I didn't. The drill wasn't a flawed drill. It is the expectation of how you can use that drill that may be flawed, which after all was the whole point of the description I wrote.

Yeah… honestly, I'm not seeing varied attacks as a flaw in the drilling, if anything, if that presents a problem, it's the lack of awareness of what the drills are teaching, not the drilling methodology itself...

That's more like it.

Possibly…. but not necessarily, to be honest. Some things can be defined quite clearly… others can be a bit more vague, but the heart of the definition (which is what I've been addressing) is still very much the core of the issue.

An admirable intent.

 

[Steve]

In a way, yes. Unless you (or anyone else) can find an argument against them.

I think it's helpful to know what you mean when you use certain words, provided you understand that your definitions may not be universally accepted. If you get that, then it's all good. The concern I have is that you think those are the only true, correct definition of those terms. If that's the case, there will undoubtedly be misunderstandings and unnecessary back and forth down the road.

 

[MJS]

Well… yeah, I am. But of course, it's not that simple…

The first thing to remember is that, really, it's almost impossible to find someone who is just "RBSD"… it's more an approach to training that can be (and is) applied to any number of other (primarily combative) systems… which means that, by necessity, RBSD systems "fighting" aspect will always draw from other mechanical methods. And yeah, that can certainly include boxing… or look somewhat "MMA-ish"… but that's not the same thing.

OK. And to be clear, I regret using MMA/boxing...lol..as it seems to have caused confusion. I didn't mean to imply that it was the same. Anyways....I would say that if you were to seek out a RBSD guy, ie: Dmitri, Franco, etc, it'd be best to already have a solid background to draw from. I've seen some of Rich's stuff. IMO, anyone without a base of some sort, is probably going to be lost.

The question you have to ask is why many of the RBSD systems look more like boxing… and the reason, fairly simply, is that, particularly in the Western zeitgeist, boxing is dominant in our image of violence. It has become so pervasive in our imagery that it has become the "standard" form of what is seen, whether the persons involved have any training or background at all… they will still look like "boxers" to a fair degree.

OK.

Additionally, as it's such a common expression, it can easily serve as a "common language" for bringing together practitioners from disparate approaches. When it comes to the video above, a few things to keep in mind… one is that I've trained with Deane… what's being shown up there is part of his "street combatives" approach (street fighting/protection), not his RBSD methodology (they are separate)… so looking to it as an example of "RBSD fighting methods" doesn't really work. Additionally, part of Deane's background is his boxing training… so it's natural that he'd design something around that… other RBSD instructors have other backgrounds, which lead them to different expressions.

OK.

Finally, of course, although there is a range of technical methods similar to what is seen in boxing, it's really not that similar past simple superficial aspects. Deane actually makes a number of comments pointing out the distinction between what he's showing, and a "boxing" approach. Tactically, it's quite different… distance-wise, it's quite different (focused on in-fighting only)… time-wise, it's quite different… even mechanically there are differences… what's "available" is different… and so on.

So yeah, there is quite a difference between the way a boxer does things, or the way an MMA athlete does things, and the way things are done in RBSD systems.

OK

Mike, it may help to remember that I teach both TMA and RBSD… in the same class. As separate sections. So, when I'm talking about what RBSD is, and what TMA's are, I'm not making guesses… this is what I do.

Oh, I didn't mean to say that you were making guesses.

As far as "do they look anything alike", well, that depends on what you're looking for… our traditional methods do inform our modern (RBSD) approach to a large degree… in everything from mechanical and technical approaches, to tactical concepts, principles, and more. I can identify a lot of our TMA approach in our RBSD methods… but that's to be expected, as I'm teaching both at the same time (well, separate sections of the class, but to the same group within the same class structure). Of course, it's just as easy to point out differences… the essence of our postural concepts are the same, but the expression is very different… same with the striking, same with the grappling, and so on. And, of course, the RBSD side is a lot more than the combative engagement… which is very different to the TMA side of things.

OK

Ha, I certainly hope not!

LOL, yeah I had a feeling you'd get a chuckle out of that.

Hmm… maybe that was a bit harsh… but no, my TMA side of things, although largely the same syllabus, is done is a rather different fashion to the Bujinkan classes I've attended over the years… and I haven't seen anything close to what we do in the RBSD side of things, to be honest. I'm not sure what that has to do with the comment, though…

No, I didn't think it was harsh. LOL!

 

[drop bear]

Interesting regarding whether you should drill set patterns.

far as prearranged drills go i still use set escapes in sparring. They know what i am going to do because we have both trained the same system.

And yet the escapes still work.

 

[drop bear]

In a way, yes. Unless you (or anyone else) can find an argument against them.

I don't think there has been an argument for it though. Other than personal preference.

 

[Steve]

I don't think there has been an argument for it though. Other than personal preference.

I think this is pretty much right. It's more about understanding what you mean when you use a term than a particular definition being correct or incorrect. Within reason, of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Transk53]

Talking of this subject, would be beneficial for someone in my line of work to explore this. In my humdrum security role, my lads and I have been discussing current events, sorry atrocities, and while not worried as such, we don't have training that specialist. Working in a technically "open port" under port/marine framework, we been involved with all the UK services. As a personal thing, would RBSD be beneficial?

 

[drop bear]

Talking of this subject, would be beneficial for someone in my line of work to explore this. In my humdrum security role, my lads and I have been discussing current events, sorry atrocities, and while not worried as such, we don't have training that specialist. Working in a technically "open port" under port/marine framework, we been involved with all the UK services. As a personal thing, would RBSD be beneficial?

you mean anti terrorist stuff?

go find an expert.

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm not suggesting you can't use the technique. In subsequent posts DB finally described the choke he was referring to as grabbing the trachea. Certainly it's going to get your attention and you might even get a momentary freeze, but a trained person is going to deal with it pretty quickly unless the person attacking is actually trying to crush the trachea, potentially lethal. Even then I would suggest the the technique I teach against it would work quickly and effectively in the time taken to consolidate the grip.

Yeah… there's a few things going on here, and I'm not entirely sure how to put it…

Look, I have no doubt over your confidence in your technique… I've got some myself… and I'm familiar with the Krav response to a front choke (in many lines, it's the first method taught)… however, such techniques, practiced in the adrenaline free environment of a training hall, can fail to take into account what might be called the "human element"… natural, hard-wired, instinctive responses and so on. There are a range of survival instincts that can trump even a trained response in many cases, especially if the training hasn't taken them into account in the first place, and a sudden, violent threat to the airways is one of them.

Sure, a "trained person" can recover in a quicker time, allowing for a response, but that doesn't stop the action in the first place having it's intended effect ("freezing", at least momentarily). As I mentioned, we not only use this as part of our methods, but I've personally employed it "live in the field", so to speak, and can attest to it's effect. So that's where I'm coming from.

I only included it as a quote because I didn't write it. It doesn't need a context. All I was getting at is that even when you categorise your are using some form of criteria to determine what will be included. Others can agree or disagree and that is the problem we will normally encounter.

No, it does need a context… there's no indication of what the quote was attributing the purpose and process of categorising to. That alone can change the intent and reading of the quote. I mean, I get what you were getting at, but I don't think it's really either correct across the board, or in this case. Disagreeing based on a lack of knowledge isn't really a concern.

I think you are reading far more into what I wrote than was intended. By set response I wanted a response that was firstly a part of normal training and one that could be reasonably expected to be used in a real situation rather than making something up for the point of the exercise.

Yeah… which is still a "set response". Again, the idea of it being something that can be "reasonably expected to be used" neither precludes, nor is essential for a "set response".

You were the one who introduce 'flaw'. I thought I understood what you were saying but obviously I didn't. The drill wasn't a flawed drill. It is the expectation of how you can use that drill that may be flawed, which after all was the whole point of the description I wrote.

What I was identifying as the flaw in the drill was the way you described continuing in a way that the students couldn't make work. That was a flaw in the drilling method… I wasn't saying anything about the responses themselves being flawed… just following the way you described things.

That's more like it.

Sure.

An admirable intent.

Hmm… there's no "intent" there… simply an attempt to accurately define various methodologies.

I think it's helpful to know what you mean when you use certain words, provided you understand that your definitions may not be universally accepted. If you get that, then it's all good. The concern I have is that you think those are the only true, correct definition of those terms. If that's the case, there will undoubtedly be misunderstandings and unnecessary back and forth down the road.

What I mean when I use such terms as DefTacs, RBSD etc is the accurate definition of those terms. It really doesn't matter if such a definition isn't "universally accepted"… evolution isn't "universally accepted", that doesn't really have bearing on what's accurate or correct. The attempt to placate by allowing a definition to be stretched to accommodate whatever anyone wants to define something as is firstly inaccurate, secondly redundant, and thirdly a damn insult to anyone interested in actually knowing what the thing is in the first place.

In other words, I really couldn't care less if people agree or not. The definitions I presented are the accurate definitions. If you disagree, you'd better either have a better definition with more understanding of the topic than myself, or I suggest you accept that I know what I'm talking about, and choose to improve your own understanding by virtue of the information I'm providing.

OK. And to be clear, I regret using MMA/boxing...lol..as it seems to have caused confusion. I didn't mean to imply that it was the same. Anyways....I would say that if you were to seek out a RBSD guy, ie: Dmitri, Franco, etc, it'd be best to already have a solid background to draw from. I've seen some of Rich's stuff. IMO, anyone without a base of some sort, is probably going to be lost.

Okay, that's something I can get behind… and, for the record, is something I've mentioned every time RBSD has been brought up before… and is what I was getting at when I described RBSD methodologies as something that can be applied to (most) any other system of combative application.

Oh, I didn't mean to say that you were making guesses.

Thanks. Of course, it can appear that that's the impression, as my definitions are being argued against without any argument against them… which can be why I might see it as guesswork.

Once more, though, my background (and current training and teaching) is made up of traditional martial arts (honestly, far more "traditional" than what most here consider "traditional", when we get down to it), RBSD, and DefTacs methodologies. My Chief Instructor is government certified to create DefTac programs on a number of levels, they have been a part of my education in this area for years, as has RBSD. This is what I do. And, it might be noted, any time such methods are brought up, anyone else here (LEO for DefTacs, for example) who has experience or understanding in the area have never had issues with my definitions.

Of course, this isn't aimed at you, Mike… just trying to be as clear as I can in where my understanding is coming from (for others).

Interesting regarding whether you should drill set patterns.

far as prearranged drills go i still use set escapes in sparring. They know what i am going to do because we have both trained the same system.

And yet the escapes still work.

Well, yeah… that's kinda the point of training them in set drills… of course, there's a world of other considerations, to do with the drill itself, what it's designed for, and it's application, all of which have an influence on the methods "still working" in different contexts and constraints.

I don't think there has been an argument for it though. Other than personal preference.

There is an argument for it. The argument for it is "these are the definitions". That's the argument. There's nothing about personal preference at all.

I think this is pretty much right. It's more about understanding what you mean when you use a term than a particular definition being correct or incorrect. Within reason, of course.

No, it's not. This thread asks "What is RBSD?" I've given the definition, expanded on it, corrected misunderstandings, agreed with RBSD instructors definitions, and more. It is specifically about "correct or incorrect"… that's how definitions work.

Talking of this subject, would be beneficial for someone in my line of work to explore this. In my humdrum security role, my lads and I have been discussing current events, sorry atrocities, and while not worried as such, we don't have training that specialist. Working in a technically "open port" under port/marine framework, we been involved with all the UK services. As a personal thing, would RBSD be beneficial?

That'd depend on the system itself… potentially, yeah, it could be. Would it be a "sure thing"? Nope. But I don't think anyone would ever suggest that anything there would be a sure thing… Jim Wagner's system (self-reputedly) teaches such things… we address a range of aspects ourselves, in differing ways…

 

[drop bear]

There is an argument for it. The argument for it is "these are the definitions". That's the argument. There's nothing about personal preference at all.

that is entirely personal. The argument against are. These are not the definitions.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah… there's a few things going on here, and I'm not entirely sure how to put it…

Look, I have no doubt over your confidence in your technique… I've got some myself… and I'm familiar with the Krav response to a front choke (in many lines, it's the first method taught)… however, such techniques, practiced in the adrenaline free environment of a training hall, can fail to take into account what might be called the "human element"… natural, hard-wired, instinctive responses and so on. There are a range of survival instincts that can trump even a trained response in many cases, especially if the training hasn't taken them into account in the first place, and a sudden, violent threat to the airways is one of them.

Sure, a "trained person" can recover in a quicker time, allowing for a response, but that doesn't stop the action in the first place having it's intended effect ("freezing", at least momentarily). As I mentioned, we not only use this as part of our methods, but I've personally employed it "live in the field", so to speak, and can attest to it's effect. So that's where I'm coming from.

this probably should be in the other thread. But i may as well have another bite at it.

I did mention that if you conditioned for it you could probably. Train away the panic response. But that would involve someone routinely closing off your windpipe.

I don't believe you can train away that reaction by not wracking on that choke. And i don't think that is how people train that defence.

what we train is to act fast when stuff goes around our neck.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Talking of this subject, would be beneficial for someone in my line of work to explore this. In my humdrum security role, my lads and I have been discussing current events, sorry atrocities, and while not worried as such, we don't have training that specialist. Working in a technically "open port" under port/marine framework, we been involved with all the UK services. As a personal thing, would RBSD be beneficial?

Maybe you should talk to the company you work for and ask them to send you on some training courses.

 

[Chris Parker]

that is entirely personal. The argument against are. These are not the definitions.

No, it's entirely not personal. It's rather objective, actually… as those definitions don't come from me, but from the actual methods themselves.

And, again, in order to argue against the definitions, you'd need to provide something as an alternative that works better. Which, frankly, no-one has. Your take on RBSD has been consistently inaccurate, citing fraudulent individuals and systems that have never identified as RBSD at all, for the record.

 

[Transk53]

you mean anti terrorist stuff?

go find an expert.

Already done some seminar stuff on that. Would think that is a different subject in comparison with the thread.

 

[drop bear]

No, it's entirely not personal. It's rather objective, actually… as those definitions don't come from me, but from the actual methods themselves.

And, again, in order to argue against the definitions, you'd need to provide something as an alternative that works better. Which, frankly, no-one has. Your take on RBSD has been consistently inaccurate, citing fraudulent individuals and systems that have never identified as RBSD at all, for the record.

i did either link or read a link that effectively made the division into sport ,traditional and rbsd.

from memory that was the jim Wagner link that according to you popularized the term.

which is where i have made the division.

So it is not from me either. And as far as them being fraudulent. Well that would be up to you to prove. Because i will say they are not from a purely objective stance.

 

[Transk53]

That'd depend on the system itself… potentially, yeah, it could be. Would it be a "sure thing"? Nope. But I don't think anyone would ever suggest that anything there would be a sure thing… Jim Wagner's system (self-reputedly) teaches such things… we address a range of aspects ourselves, in differing ways…

Thanks. I will look further into his system.

 

[drop bear]

Already done some seminar stuff on that. Would think that is a different subject in comparison with the thread.

Yes. I very much doubt anybody here is an anti terrorism expert.

 

[Transk53]

Maybe you should talk to the company you work for and ask them to send you on some training courses.

Yeah we do. However, all these things come down to finance.