Are you really training for self defense?

[Steve]

The physical skills of the teacher can become applied through regular practice/pressure testing. That is the key. Going to a class then not practicing means little. I am not referring to that. I am referring to something that is practiced there after.

i don’t understand what you mean by this. Are you saying that with a good enough teacher, a pilot student wouldn’t need to fly a plane or a seal wouldn’t need to dive? The skills of the teacher would just sort of sink in? That’s how self defense is trained, unless someone is lucky enough to have a means for application, whether competitive or professional.

 

[Steve]

But that's an artificial distinction, Steve. Flying a plane and sparring are both ways of practicing physical skills. They are also both ways of applying those physical skills. You can get practice with drills, or you can get practice by actually applying the techniques to a live "opponent" (person or the environment your'e flying in).

sure. When someone spars, they are practicing something. It’s just not self defense.

Again, I see simulations/scenarios in MA as being like simulations in pilot training. I see sparring as the routine flying. Because you're actually doing the thing you've trained for, like a pilot flying a plane under reasonable conditions. And pilots never get to practice emergency situations except in drills and simulators - just like SD training can't practice defending against a live knife from someone really trying to gut you. Both of our distinctions are artificial. You don't see flying a plane as similar to sparring. I do. I don't think either of us is going to change the others' mind, because there's some logic to both positions.

Sparring is like role playing. It’s like scenario based simulation. And pilots do get to gain real skill as pilots. Once again, flying the plane is the bulk of the ladder. The upper rungs of the ladder are expertise, where you can adapt when things go awry. You can’t shortcut your way there. You can’t expect a guy who hasn’t flown the plane to perform in an emergency, regardless of how good the training.

You want sparring to be more than it is, because you are invested. I get it. But I think someday you’ll come around. You’re a smart guy. Give it another 4 or 5 years.

 

[Buka]

sure. When someone spars, they are practicing something. It’s just not self defense.
Sparring is like role playing. It’s like scenario based simulation. And pilots do get to gain real skill as pilots. Once again, flying the plane is the bulk of the ladder. The upper rungs of the ladder are expertise, where you can adapt when things go awry. You can’t shortcut your way there. You can’t expect a guy who hasn’t flown the plane to perform in an emergency, regardless of how good the training.

You want sparring to be more than it is, because you are invested. I get it. But I think someday you’ll come around. You’re a smart guy. Give it another 4 or 5 years.

You sure do get me to thinking.
Seems like a conundrum for sure. Application of certain things is difficult. Myself and several of the guys at work were supposed to re-qualify at the range. We do so several times a year. But we were rained out for the third week in a row, it's basically a sea of sticky, fricken' mud.

Made me think about shooting. I've trained it for many a year, yet I've never actually shot anyone. Trained in a lot of ways, off hand shooting, speed reloading, clearing jams, prone, running, barricaded, cover fire, Hogans Allies, shoot/don't shoot films, run and gun, target shooting, blah, blah. Just hours and hours on lots of ranges.

Could I shoot someone? I imagine so. Hope I never find out. But my point is....the only way to apply all the practice and training, to see if it actually works, would be to actually shoot somebody in a bad situation.

Kind of the same thing with Martial training. Kind of difficult to apply a lot of it in actual life. At least the fighting part of it, unless you fight. And the whole idea is to not have to.

What about you, Steve, are you really training for self defense?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

sure. When someone spars, they are practicing something. It’s just not self defense.
Sparring is like role playing. It’s like scenario based simulation. And pilots do get to gain real skill as pilots. Once again, flying the plane is the bulk of the ladder. The upper rungs of the ladder are expertise, where you can adapt when things go awry. You can’t shortcut your way there. You can’t expect a guy who hasn’t flown the plane to perform in an emergency, regardless of how good the training.

You want sparring to be more than it is, because you are invested. I get it. But I think someday you’ll come around. You’re a smart guy. Give it another 4 or 5 years.

We're just going to disagree on this and leave it. You're starting to ignore parts of my statements and only reply to the parts you like. That gets tiring.

 

[Steve]

You sure do get me to thinking.
Seems like a conundrum for sure. Application of certain things is difficult. Myself and several of the guys at work were supposed to re-qualify at the range. We do so several times a year. But we were rained out for the third week in a row, it's basically a sea of sticky, fricken' mud.

Made me think about shooting. I've trained it for many a year, yet I've never actually shot anyone. Trained in a lot of ways, off hand shooting, speed reloading, clearing jams, prone, running, barricaded, cover fire, Hogans Allies, shoot/don't shoot films, run and gun, target shooting, blah, blah. Just hours and hours on lots of ranges.

Could I shoot someone? I imagine so. Hope I never find out. But my point is....the only way to apply all the practice and training, to see if it actually works, would be to actually shoot somebody in a bad situation.

Kind of the same thing with Martial training. Kind of difficult to apply a lot of it in actual life. At least the fighting part of it, unless you fight. And the whole idea is to not have to.

What about you, Steve, are you really training for self defense?

It's good that you're confident. I believe you to be a thoughtful and serious guy, who wants to do a good job. But even with all of that, could you shoot someone? The answer is probably not, at least, not the first time you need to do so. That's based on what I know about how people learn things, and also supported statistically..

According to a study done in NYC in 2008, cops had an accuracy rate of 18% under fire, and 30% when firing at someone who wasn't firing back. So, if this is typical, then, the answer to your question is, maybe you could shoot someone, but if so, your odds of hitting them under fire are less than 1 in 5. Even at "close range" (within 7 yards of the target), the accuracy from 1999-2006 was 37%. in the study, the training methods are outlined for the NYPD, and they seem very similar to the training you guys all describe. It sounds to me like terrific training for both recruits and in-service officers.

The study also notes a statistical link between negative marks on the officers' records and rate of firing weapons. Officers with an average of 3.1 or more Central Personnel Index (CPI) points are three times more likely to fire their weapons. In other words, the top 15% of cops with negative marks on their records were far more likely to fire a gun.

So, all that said, I think it would depend on how well prepared the rest of your job functions prepare you to leverage the emergency skills. In other words, how well does the training dovetail with the foundation you apply in your job every day? Are the emergency actions you're training an extension of things you do every day, a complimentary (i.e., related) skillset, or are they a completely different skill set? I would also say that whether you can do it or not would depend on things you bring to the table that are not specifically trained, such as judgment, temperament and emotional intelligence. I think it's no accident that these traits would also make one less likely to fire the weapon in the first place.

 

[Steve]

We're just going to disagree on this and leave it. You're starting to ignore parts of my statements and only reply to the parts you like. That gets tiring.

I do my best to respond to everything, but have limited time. Sometimes, my only opportunity to reply is on my phone without my glasses on, and I think my posts are so disjointed and riddled with typos, it's hard to understand what I mean.

I think this is going to click for you, so, my interest isn't to ignore parts of what you say.

The article I reference above to Buka supports the things I'm trying to say. It's not that good training is irrelevant or has no impact. It's that application of training is critical, and in particular how the training is applied, the timeliness of the application relative to the training (i.e., how soon did you apply the training after the training was received?) and the relevance of the training to the task.

Here's another way to look at it. The training isn't there to replace application. It's there to facilitate the transition from not doing something to doing it. Let's say there's a bridge. On one side is incompetence and on the other is competence. You can put a blind fold on, and ride across the bridge on a unicycle. This is like self teaching... people learn to do things all the time on their own. You may not succeed... certainly, you've stacked the odds. But people get to the other side all the time without any help from training. Just figure it out. Training allows you to walk across the bridge. You'll get to the other side faster and without all the drama. It won't be as exciting, but you've increased your odds for success. But the bridge is still just the bridge. Competence is on the other side. Going back and forth on the bridge never gets you to the NEXT bridge. You'll never even see it.

Everything overlaps. So, while skill development is linear and predictable, skillsets aren't, particularly when you start getting into complimentary skills sets. It's more like the following (if I can make this make sense): The point I'm trying to illustrate is that performance in skill 1 (whatever that might be) enables one to begin developing skills 2 and 3, which then enable one to train in skill 4. And while that is happening, the person is continuing to apply skill one, and is moving beyond performance into expertise.

This same things can be applied at a skillset level, on a more macro scale. Larger context, but it's the same thing. Cops gain skills in one area of self defense. MMA guys gain skills in another. Each could approach self defense training from a different angle, because the skills they're actually acquiring are complimentary.

EDIT: Just want to add that the reverse is true, too. Sometimes, to get to the point where you can begin to train something, you will need to be performing or an expert in several other things... So, the pyramid below expands based on dependency of skills or skillsets, but also contracts similarly, based on dependency.

Skill 4	Skill 2	Skill 1	Skill 3	Skill 5	Skill 6
		Training
	Training	Performance	Training
Training	Performance	Expertise	Performance	Training
Performance	Expertise	Innovation	Expertise	Performance	Training
Expertise	Innovation		Innovation	Expertise	Performance
Innovation				Innovation	Expertise
					Innovation

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I do my best to respond to everything, but have limited time. Sometimes, my only opportunity to reply is on my phone without my glasses on, and I think my posts are so disjointed and riddled with typos, it's hard to understand what I mean.

I think this is going to click for you, so, my interest isn't to ignore parts of what you say.

The article I reference above to Buka supports the things I'm trying to say. It's not that good training is irrelevant or has no impact. It's that application of training is critical, and in particular how the training is applied, the timeliness of the application relative to the training (i.e., how soon did you apply the training after the training was received?) and the relevance of the training to the task.

Here's another way to look at it. The training isn't there to replace application. It's there to facilitate the transition from not doing something to doing it. Let's say there's a bridge. On one side is incompetence and on the other is competence. You can put a blind fold on, and ride across the bridge on a unicycle. This is like self teaching... people learn to do things all the time on their own. You may not succeed... certainly, you've stacked the odds. But people get to the other side all the time without any help from training. Just figure it out. Training allows you to walk across the bridge. You'll get to the other side faster and without all the drama. It won't be as exciting, but you've increased your odds for success. But the bridge is still just the bridge. Competence is on the other side. Going back and forth on the bridge never gets you to the NEXT bridge. You'll never even see it.

Everything overlaps. So, while skill development is linear and predictable, skillsets aren't, particularly when you start getting into complimentary skills sets. It's more like the following (if I can make this make sense): The point I'm trying to illustrate is that performance in skill 1 (whatever that might be) enables one to begin developing skills 2 and 3, which then enable one to train in skill 4. And while that is happening, the person is continuing to apply skill one, and is moving beyond performance into expertise.

This same things can be applied at a skillset level, on a more macro scale. Larger context, but it's the same thing. Cops gain skills in one area of self defense. MMA guys gain skills in another. Each could approach self defense training from a different angle, because the skills they're actually acquiring are complimentary.

EDIT: Just want to add that the reverse is true, too. Sometimes, to get to the point where you can begin to train something, you will need to be performing or an expert in several other things... So, the pyramid below expands based on dependency of skills or skillsets, but also contracts similarly, based on dependency.

Skill 4	Skill 2	Skill 1	Skill 3	Skill 5	Skill 6
Training
Training	Performance	Training
Training	Performance	Expertise	Performance	Training
Performance	Expertise	Innovation	Expertise	Performance	Training
Expertise	Innovation	Innovation	Expertise	Performance
Innovation	Innovation	Expertise
Innovation

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

There's nothing there I disagree with, Steve. You and I just disagree with where "application" starts, and whether skills for emergencies can reliably be developed unless you're frequently experiencing those emergencies.

 

[Steve]

There's nothing there I disagree with, Steve. You and I just disagree with where "application" starts, and whether skills for emergencies can reliably be developed unless you're frequently experiencing those emergencies.

I provided statistical support for my belief. Did you read the study I linked to in my response to Buka? If not, I recommend you do. It's consistent with everything I've been saying around here for a long time.

Also, the forum destroyed my table. It doesn't make much sense anymore. Hopefully, the point made it through. I'll try again:

Skill 4	Skill 2	Skill 1	Skill 3	Skill 5	Skill 6
.	.	Training	.	.	.
.	Training	Performance	Training	.	.
Training	Performance	Expertise	Performance	.	.
Performance	Expertise	Innovation	Expertise	Training	.
Expertise	Innovation	.	Innovation	Performance	Training
Innovation	.	.	.	Expertise	Performance
.	.	.	.	Innovation	Expertise

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Steve]

Also, emergency skills can be developed. Are they reliable? Well, that depends entirely on what you mean by "reliable." I will tell you, though, they are going to be far less reliable if you never use the training you've been taught. Even less reliable if you don't use the foundational skills upon which the emergency skills rely. And your chances of success approach "dumb luck" if you're learning both the foundational skills and the emergency skills from someone who is as inexperienced as you.

Have you ever watched Forged in Fire, the knife making competition on History Channel? Great show, if you haven't. Learning self defense from a typical martial arts instructor is like learning to forge knives from someone who is an expert at watching that show.

EDIT: CPR training is another good example of the points I'm making.

 

[Buka]

It's good that you're confident. I believe you to be a thoughtful and serious guy, who wants to do a good job. But even with all of that, could you shoot someone? The answer is probably not, at least, not the first time you need to do so. That's based on what I know about how people learn things, and also supported statistically..

According to a study done in NYC in 2008, cops had an accuracy rate of 18% under fire, and 30% when firing at someone who wasn't firing back. So, if this is typical, then, the answer to your question is, maybe you could shoot someone, but if so, your odds of hitting them under fire are less than 1 in 5. Even at "close range" (within 7 yards of the target), the accuracy from 1999-2006 was 37%. in the study, the training methods are outlined for the NYPD, and they seem very similar to the training you guys all describe. It sounds to me like terrific training for both recruits and in-service officers.

The study also notes a statistical link between negative marks on the officers' records and rate of firing weapons. Officers with an average of 3.1 or more Central Personnel Index (CPI) points are three times more likely to fire their weapons. In other words, the top 15% of cops with negative marks on their records were far more likely to fire a gun.

So, all that said, I think it would depend on how well prepared the rest of your job functions prepare you to leverage the emergency skills. In other words, how well does the training dovetail with the foundation you apply in your job every day? Are the emergency actions you're training an extension of things you do every day, a complimentary (i.e., related) skillset, or are they a completely different skill set? I would also say that whether you can do it or not would depend on things you bring to the table that are not specifically trained, such as judgment, temperament and emotional intelligence. I think it's no accident that these traits would also make one less likely to fire the weapon in the first place.

Steve....oh, you suck sooooo bad.....that's meant as good natured ribbing, not an insult, I'll get back to why in a moment, bear with me.

Whether on not I could shoot someone if necessary, I believe you're basing your thoughts on the assumption that I've never been forced to take a life in a method not involving a firearm.

Also, as I asked at the end of my post that you quoted, "Are you really training for self defense". I'm not questioning your art, you probably know how much I fricken' love BJJ, I'm just curious as to whether your particular journey has a mind set, be it total or just sometimes while training, when you're concentrating on self defense?

Okay.....now WHY you suck so badly, my brother. I've been reading for close to two hours so far. [I hate you right now. No, really]

First I started with Evaluation of the New York City Police Department Firearm Training and Fire-Discharge Process, which you provided the link to, thank you, and, of course, the Central Personnel Index.....and was then led to the landmark essay, The Functions of Police in Modern Society, which I'm not finished with yet.....it's like being at the dentist......and if Egon Bittner, the author, was still alive I'd personally shove a thesaurus right down his gullet....sideways. That's not based on disagreement, but on how he writes. And I'll still have to read the Supreme Court cases cited.

I so hate you, bro.

 

[Steve]

Steve....oh, you suck sooooo bad.....that's meant as good natured ribbing, not an insult, I'll get back to why in a moment, bear with me.

Whether on not I could shoot someone if necessary, I believe you're basing your thoughts on the assumption that I've never been forced to take a life in a method not involving a firearm.

Also, as I asked at the end of my post that you quoted, "Are you really training for self defense". I'm not questioning your art, you probably know how much I fricken' love BJJ, I'm just curious as to whether your particular journey has a mind set, be it total or just sometimes while training, when you're concentrating on self defense?

Okay.....now WHY you suck so badly, my brother. I've been reading for close to two hours so far. [I hate you right now. No, really]

First I started with Evaluation of the New York City Police Department Firearm Training and Fire-Discharge Process, which you provided the link to, thank you, and, of course, the Central Personnel Index.....and was then led to the landmark essay, The Functions of Police in Modern Society, which I'm not finished with yet.....it's like being at the dentist......and if Egon Bittner, the author, was still alive I'd personally shove a thesaurus right down his gullet....sideways. That's not based on disagreement, but on how he writes. And I'll still have to read the Supreme Court cases cited.

I so hate you, bro.

So glad you thought that was interesting, Buka. I figured you would.

Regarding whether I'm training for self defense, that's a great question. I'd say no, but the training I do helps decrease my odds of being victimized.

 

[Buka]

So glad you thought that was interesting, Buka. I figured you would.

Regarding whether I'm training for self defense, that's a great question. I'd say no, but the training I do helps decrease my odds of being victimized.

I would argue that decreasing one's odds of being victimized, is self defense. Pretty pure self defense at that.

 

[Steve]

I would argue that decreasing one's odds of being victimized, is self defense. Pretty pure self defense at that.

Yeah, I agree. But if we're getting to what makes people less likely to be victimized, I believe it's more to do with building real skills and understanding the subsidiary benefits of the activity. It's useful to train in an art where you get to use what you learn. Judo, MMA, wrestling, Shuai Jiao, boxing... they all have an advantage over arts where you don't use what you learn. And that, in itself, is useful, because you will know not just that the techniques work, but that YOU can make the techniques work. So, when it comes to whether someone will be able to perform in an emergency, the school teacher who competes in Judo is much more likely to succeed in using the skills in an emergency than the school teacher who has learned several ways to kill or maim someone with their car keys. This is because the Judoka has applied the skills in a complimentary situation, in the same way that a cop will be able to rely on skills used on the job if he or she is in a self defense situation.

But that's actually not the part that I believe makes me safer. The big thing is the subsidiary benefits of training in anything that has some structural integrity, which can be achieved by doing activities that don't involve fighting or maiming or killing. Confidence, fitness, coordination, positive self image, feeling like you're a part of a group... all of these things help you lead a balanced lifestyle. Not doing drugs or hanging out in bars, starting fights at picnics or otherwise engaging in a high risk lifestyle. These also help.

Honestly, I think I'd have just as positive an effect on my odds of being victimized by doing Crossfit or Bikram Yoga as I do in BJJ. I don't see a lot of difference between "self defense" training and, say, parkour training, or gymnastics, for example. Self defense guys around here get pretty snooty when someone talks about XMA or things like that, but I think that when it comes down to it, those XMA kids have the ingredients that will make them less likely to be victimized.

But the bottom line... will I be able to choke out a bad guy? I'd say definitely, who knows? Maybe? I think my chances of successfully doing so are better than someone who trains in a non-competitive grappling style like ninjutsu.

 

[geezer]

The school teacher who competes in Judo is much more likely to succeed in using the skills in an emergency than the school teacher who has learned several ways to kill or maim someone with their car keys.

I would agree with the statement above, even when competiton isn't involved.

I am a school teacher and among other things, I train escrima and spend some time whacking away at partners with sticks. When we get bound up grappling ensues. And some punching. I have also (in another art. a long time ago) been instructed how to maim people with car keys (who hasn't?).

Anyway, if attacked, I would not hesitate to whack someone with a stick or punch them, or grapple with them. At my age I might not be all that successful, mind you. But I doubt I'd hesitate to react if necessary.

On the other hand, I have no confidence in my ability to instantaneously react and maim someone with car keys. Actually, I'd have issues using a knife too. Not something you're supposed to say when you are in FMA, but it's the truth.

On the other hand, hitting people with sticks makes me happy!

 

[Steve]

I would agree with the statement above, even when competiton isn't involved.

I am a school teacher and among other things, I train escrima and spend some time whacking away at partners with sticks. When we get bound up grappling ensues. And some punching. I have also (in another art. a long time ago) been instructed how to maim people with car keys (who hasn't?).

Anyway, if attacked, I would not hesitate to whack someone with a stick or punch them, or grapple with them. At my age I might not be all that successful, mind you. But I doubt I'd hesitate to react if necessary.

On the other hand, I have no confidence in my ability to instantaneously react and maim someone with car keys. Actually, I'd have issues using a knife too. Not something you're supposed to say when you are in FMA, but it's the truth.

On the other hand, hitting people with sticks makes me happy!

If there is one thing more natural and instinctive than grappling, it's hitting people with sticks.

 

[Buka]

But the bottom line... will I be able to choke out a bad guy? I'd say definitely, who knows? Maybe? I think my chances of successfully doing so are better than someone who trains in a non-competitive grappling style like ninjutsu.

As you said in a following post, grappling has a natural and instinctive side to it. Especially from behind with a choke. It's almost like hugging yourself. And in my opinion, there's far less worry about injuring the chokee. [as in choker and chokee]

I don't think there's any "maybe" there in your game, bro.

 

[drop bear]

I would argue that decreasing one's odds of being victimized, is self defense. Pretty pure self defense at that.

There is a difference. Self defence is about putting up with duchebags. Decreasing being victimised means you don't have to.

pizza slap.

 

[BigMotor]

There is a difference. Self defence is about putting up with duchebags. Decreasing being victimised means you don't have to.

pizza slap.

I would not let him get by with that, and please interpret what I said ,however you like. But it would have not been one sided like that, it would have been different.

 

[Steve]

I would not let him get by with that, and please interpret what I said ,however you like. But it would have not been one sided like that, it would have been different.

Can you tell us a little more about that?

 

[BigMotor]

Steve,
No I cannot elaborate, my post speaks for itself; and you are left to comprehend the tenor of it, on your own.
God gave all us the ability to understand implication, it is known as inferring. So, please infer.