On Reality Based Self Defense

[Joab]

What is reality based self defense? According to Jim Wagner, "reality based" is defined as training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that practitioners are likely to encounter in their environements (their "reality")

source:www.selfdefenseresource.com/reality-based/articles/reality-based=overview.php

Are Reality based self defense systems really more practical than traditional martial arts in terms of training for self defense in likely scenarios, or are traditional martial arts just as practical as reality based self defense systems? All opinions appreciated.

 

[Touch Of Death]

What is reality based self defense? According to Jim Wagner, "reality based" is defined as training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that practitioners are likely to encounter in their environements (their "reality")

source:www.selfdefenseresource.com/reality-based/articles/reality-based=overview.php

Are Reality based self defense systems really more practical than traditional martial arts in terms of training for self defense in likely scenarios, or are traditional martial arts just as practical as reality based self defense systems? All opinions appreciated.

Traditional martial arts are less effective in that much of your training time may be spent on something you will never see on the street; however, the concept of falling and getting off the line of attack should be sound; so it aint a total waste of time. It just takes longer to get proficient.
Sean

 

[Xue Sheng]

What is reality based self defense? According to Jim Wagner, "reality based" is defined as training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that practitioners are likely to encounter in their environements (their "reality")

source:www.selfdefenseresource.com/reality-based/articles/reality-based=overview.php

Are Reality based self defense systems really more practical than traditional martial arts in terms of training for self defense in likely scenarios, or are traditional martial arts just as practical as reality based self defense systems? All opinions appreciated.

As my Sanda sifu said (police/military sanda) Sanda is no better or worse than any other Chinese martial art it is just a quick way to learn how to hurt someone really badly.

 

[Flying Crane]

I have no experience with Mr. Wagner, nor his "reality-based" martial arts and am therefor not in a position to comment on it one way or the other.

But I will say this much: I am of the opinion that those who feel traditional martial arts are somehow less effective, or lacking in usefulness, have never experienced true traditional martial arts. Maybe they've had a poor instructor or something, I dunno. But the traditional martial arts that I've had the privilege to study have some pretty nasty and effective stuff. I swear, some of this stuff could drop a rhino...

 

[sgtmac_46]

What is reality based self defense? According to Jim Wagner, "reality based" is defined as training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that practitioners are likely to encounter in their environements (their "reality")

source:www.selfdefenseresource.com/reality-based/articles/reality-based=overview.php

Are Reality based self defense systems really more practical than traditional martial arts in terms of training for self defense in likely scenarios, or are traditional martial arts just as practical as reality based self defense systems? All opinions appreciated.

Well, since they are designed to train for realistic modern scenarios, one would think, in theory, that the answer would be obvious, especially when figuring in the sport angle of many TMA's.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I have no experience with Mr. Wagner, nor his "reality-based" martial arts and am therefor not in a position to comment on it one way or the other.

But I will say this much: I am of the opinion that those who feel traditional martial arts are somehow less effective, or lacking in usefulness, have never experienced true traditional martial arts. Maybe they've had a poor instructor or something, I dunno. But the traditional martial arts that I've had the privilege to study have some pretty nasty and effective stuff. I swear, some of this stuff could drop a rhino...

Which traditional martial arts? TMA is pretty much a catch all for everything from Tai Chi to Judo........

 

[sgtmac_46]

Traditional martial arts are less effective in that much of your training time may be spent on something you will never see on the street; however, the concept of falling and getting off the line of attack should be sound; so it aint a total waste of time. It just takes longer to get proficient.
Sean

Again, much of it depends on the TMA in particular.

What RBSD systems do, is the same thing that MMA has done......RBSD is, in reality, a parallel of MMA in the sense that MMA took what was most useful from fighting sports, and combined them.

RBSD attempts to do the same thing for self-defense.....take what is most useful, and leave the rest......wait.....i've heard that somewhere before.....:yinyang:

 

[Haze]

As long as you train for the reality or times that you live in TMA or RBSD should both serve you well for self defense.

One needs to work the techniques of an art, regardless of the name we give it, against resisting opponents / would be attackers. I think most TMA schools that I have had contact with seems to be working drills with partners that are to compliant.

 

[sgtmac_46]

As long as you train for the reality or times that you live in TMA or RBSD should both serve you well for self defense.

One needs to work the techniques of an art, regardless of the name we give it, against resisting opponents / would be attackers. I think most TMA schools that I have had contact with seems to be working drills with partners that are to compliant.

Too true.

 

[geezer]

Again, much of it depends on the TMA in particular.


RBSD attempts to do the same thing for self-defense.....take what is most useful, and leave the rest......wait.....i've heard that somewhere before.....:yinyang:

If that Yin-Yang is a reference to the concept of JKD, I'd say well put! I really don't know much about RBSD, although one of my "traditional MA" instructors trained in it to test out his own skills. He came away feeling that his particular "traditional" art held up pretty well to the test. But it's also sort of reality based, in a way. In fact, every true martial discipline was once a form of RBSD for a certain place and certain time. Some translate to our times better than others.

 

[MA-Caver]

I'd like to hear WHY folks are thinking traditional MA isn't effective out on the streets... and if it's not effective... what is?
My own scant training in MA has helped saved my *** more than once "out there" and I've seen high rank belts kick *** in bars and in parking lots... this was all in the days before everyone had a camera of some sorts.
Either way... let those who speak out against MA's effectiveness out on the streets go head to head, toe to toe with a bb of any art and let them talk afterwards about how effective it is or isn't.
Maybe a MA-ist won't do picture perfect techniques because of the changes that can happen in a "street-fight" and improvisation will be called upon but they've still more skill than the average non-MA-ist and thus would come out ahead.

 

[Flying Crane]

Which traditional martial arts? TMA is pretty much a catch all for everything from Tai Chi to Judo........

well, what I have experienced is Tibetan White Crane, Shaolin, Wing Chun, Chen Taiji, Danzan Ryu jujitsu, Judo, Bagua, Capoeira, and Tracy Kenpo (not sure if people would classify kenpo as "traditional"). I wouldn't say that I am an expert in any of this, some I've trained more deeply than others, some I've really only had the pleasure of meeting some very skilled proponents of. And all of them have stuff that, when done by someone who really knows what he is doing, is downright frightening.

That's the thing, tho. No matter what system you do, you need to train it properly and diligently. No art holds such secrets that a brief introduction is all you need to fear no man. Every single method, including Reality-Based martial arts, needs to be trained properly or else it is no good to you. And that falls on each of us. We are ultimately responsible for our own training, and need to be honest with ourselves about the quality of our efforts and the quality of the guidance we are receiving.

A lot of traditional arts do not get taught, nor trained, with high quality. But if RBMA were trained poorly then it also would be just as useless as a TMA that was trained poorly.

In my opinion, it seems that RBMA is really more about having the proper attitude in training, and using high quality training methods. Any traditional art could be (and often is) trained with this in mind, and be just as effective.

It's not so much the system, as it is the quality of training and the quality of instruction.

 

[David43515]

Crane, I think you hit the nail on the head. The vast majority of styles can be frighteningly effective if you train them with that in mind. And two different schools or instructors can teach the same art so differently that one could be made almost useless while another could be turning out fighting machines.

 

[bowser666]

Unless the are proven systems and from reputable backgrounds, i would be leery of any RBSD. Remember one persons reality is another persons fantasy. Try what works and use it. Plain and simple.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi,

To get back to the original question, RBSD is often presented as separate from martial arts training in that RBSD is primarily concerned with the pre-fight, the ability to handle the initial assault, and the post-fight adrenaline dump.

Deane Lawler, in his seminars, says that RBSD is designed to get you through the first 3 to 10 seconds of an assault, and then your martial arts training comes in. In fact, other than a few concepts, few RBSD teachers actually teach much in the way of techniques (as you would get in a martial art class), focusing more on drills and the mindset required to survive. It is almost assumed that most people who attend such classes are already experienced in some form of combative system, so there is no need to go over old ground again and again. This is how you can get certified in teaching an RBSD system with only a weekend course (in some cases), as it is principles and drills, not techniques.

Within our schools, we take the traditional techniques of our art, and in our street application, we utilise RBDS teaching methods. So the two methodologies are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are designed to work together quite well. If you have trained a more traditional system for years, you will find that pretty much any RBSD teaching will be quite applicable to your art. The difference is in the strength each gives you... Many "traditional" systems start their techniques when there is a clearly defined attack (and attacker); in other words, when the fight has already started. This can leave you open to being sucker-punched, or simply not aware of when you are already in a fight (by not being aware of the pre-fight ritual and keys of posture/body language etc). RBSD, on the other hand, teaches you very well how to recognise such pre-fight changes, and very good drills for adrenaline-training, however often lacks the technical syllabus of a full martial art.

 

[tallgeese]

The RBSD is kind of a buzz word these days, but it's more helpful to think of it as a mindset behind training and a group of training methodologies than a specific system. That being said, there are a few very good programs that are highly effective.

The bulk of it's usefulness is in the streamlined sets of skills involved and the abbreviated teaching methods used to get there. There is no kata to translate bunkai from, any movements used are trained "as is" so the student is always aware of what they are practicing.

Many, if not all, are based around a set of principles rather than a long syllabus of techniques. This make the process more goal oriented with less empahsis on the "how" of each movement and more on the effects of fullfilling principle.

There is also usually a higher level of contact agaist more resistive opponants sooner. This translates well into more effective combatants quicker. More well rounded? Probably not, but effective against a wide variety of assult with less options to choose from.

One thing I think if very useful in defining many of the good programs out there like this, is that the idea isn't defensive really. There is a sense that upon attack you become the predator. You're not really defending much past surviving the inital encounter, you're becoming the attacker. That mindset is critical in any encounter.

You do need to be careful, anyone can throw the term out there. But they are worth checking out, go and see if the pass the reality test. Are what they working against sensible? Are the movements simple and can you actually see them work vs. nearly fully reistive attackers? Do they deal with the possibility of multiple attackers, knives, guns?

Naturally, all this won't be on day one, but you should see it coming from people who've been there awhile.

Is it better that TMA? Depends on what you're wanting out of it and your training experiance. I've seen a movement or two that I've stolen and called research out of a program or two. And I've borrowed a drill or two more along the way, and I've done ma's for quite some time.

There's definatly something worthwhile in a good program.

 

[Bruno@MT]

In fact, every true martial discipline was once a form of RBSD for a certain place and certain time. Some translate to our times better than others.

Ain't that the truth.
In ninpo, we train tai sabaki using a sword attack. Other weapons are used as well, but a sword is traditional. It is unlikely in the extreme that I will ever encounter someone on the street holding a sword. But replace the sword with a baseball bat, and suddenly it's reality based training.

As Chris said, the pre-fight rituals and telltale signs have changed. But the underlying principles are still the same. And while it might be problematic for me to walk around with a hanbo, the techniques can easily be adapted to a walking stick. Imo there is very little in TMA that cannot be easily adapted to modern scenarios, if the TMA in question is one that was built on reality in another time or place.

 

[MJS]

What is reality based self defense? According to Jim Wagner, "reality based" is defined as training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that practitioners are likely to encounter in their environements (their "reality")

source:www.selfdefenseresource.com/reality-based/articles/reality-based=overview.php

Are Reality based self defense systems really more practical than traditional martial arts in terms of training for self defense in likely scenarios, or are traditional martial arts just as practical as reality based self defense systems? All opinions appreciated.

IMHO, much of what is seen in the TMAs (Traditional Martial Arts) is the exact same thing that we'd see in the RBSD arts. The main difference is the way the material is applied. In other words, instead of standing in a static stance, throwing punches and kicks, the RBSD guys will be more 'alive' for lack of better words, and add in movement, ie: focus pads, etc. The KISS principle, IMO, is used much more in RBSD. Short, simple effective moves.

Now, this isn't to say that every TMA out there is static, no aliveness, resistance, etc. However, there are many out there, who seem to frown upon adding anything 'new' to what they're doing. New....well, I said there was nothing new, but I also said that there are different methods of application.

Just like MMA training, I think that alot of the RBSD stuff can fit in just fine with any TMA. Its just a matter of the TMAist having an open mind.

 

[MJS]

Hi,

To get back to the original question, RBSD is often presented as separate from martial arts training in that RBSD is primarily concerned with the pre-fight, the ability to handle the initial assault, and the post-fight adrenaline dump.

Deane Lawler, in his seminars, says that RBSD is designed to get you through the first 3 to 10 seconds of an assault, and then your martial arts training comes in. In fact, other than a few concepts, few RBSD teachers actually teach much in the way of techniques (as you would get in a martial art class), focusing more on drills and the mindset required to survive. It is almost assumed that most people who attend such classes are already experienced in some form of combative system, so there is no need to go over old ground again and again. This is how you can get certified in teaching an RBSD system with only a weekend course (in some cases), as it is principles and drills, not techniques.

Within our schools, we take the traditional techniques of our art, and in our street application, we utilise RBDS teaching methods. So the two methodologies are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are designed to work together quite well. If you have trained a more traditional system for years, you will find that pretty much any RBSD teaching will be quite applicable to your art. The difference is in the strength each gives you... Many "traditional" systems start their techniques when there is a clearly defined attack (and attacker); in other words, when the fight has already started. This can leave you open to being sucker-punched, or simply not aware of when you are already in a fight (by not being aware of the pre-fight ritual and keys of posture/body language etc). RBSD, on the other hand, teaches you very well how to recognise such pre-fight changes, and very good drills for adrenaline-training, however often lacks the technical syllabus of a full martial art.

This post is fantastic!! So much of what was said in here is, IMO, one of the things that seperates the TMAs from the RBSD. I think alot of times, people look at the techs. and say, "Well, I do the same thing in my TMA" and they probably do, but as I said, not only is application different, but as you said in the beginning...so much more than just tech. is covered. This is what I meant when I said that the TMA guys need to keep an open mind. Be willing to look at the before and after side of the fight, scenario training, etc

 

[Xue Sheng]

Just a note.....Traditional Martial Arts were the RBSDs of their time.

Also understand that there are a few RSBDs today that are simply sales and no different than calling something "Combat". We all want to be dangerous and be dangerous quickly so we go for an RSBD over a TMA. But with that said I will be one of the first to tell you there are a lot of TMA today that are pretty ineffective but that is not due to something lacking in the TMA it has more to do with the teacher and the students. If it "IS" actually taught traditionally they are rather effective. But very few are taught traditionally anymore. This is what bugs me most about posts comparing TMA, MMA and RSBD is that we look at it on the surface and look at what it has become and then some (not all) go off touting the superiority over TMAs and they know nothing of the reality of it.

All I can say is that in the version Sanda of Sanda taught to the Police and Military in China that there are striking drills and lots of them as well as other drills, Tuishou and physical training but there is also Qinna and Shuaijiao taught so techniques are taught as are some combinations. It also is teaching the same exact basic principle as TCMA as it applies to powerful strikes; it is just not calling it Qi. And the training itself is not all that different from a TCMA of the past either, although you will not find forms in Sanda.