Self-defense training methodology

[Kong Soo Do]

There has been much discussion on the differences between self-defense training methodology vs. sport training methodology. It isn't necessarily a this vs. that since an individual is free to pursue either as the focus of their personal training (as well as other reasons). The purpose of this thread is to go into the differences in training methodology, primarily focusing on the SD model. It isnt' to say one is better or superior to the other as each has a different focus and a different goal. So from the very beginning I want to make it clear that this isnt' an 'us' vs. 'them' thread. It isn't a we're great and you suck thread. It is only to discuss the SD training methodology in and of itself and how it differs from the sport model.

For the sport-only instructor/practitioner that has only the focus or goal of sport competition, this thread will probably be of little value. And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front and what is desired.

For the sport only instructor/practitioner that wants to take a look at some SD options for possible inclusion into the training, this thread may hold some value for you.

For the SD only instructor/practitioner this would be a good thread to 'talk shop'.

For the purposes of this thread we can define self-defense as; the strategies, principles, tactics and techniques to defend oneself and/or loved ones from and attack which can cause bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death.

To begin with, most types of sport traing/competions revolve around some/most/all of the following considerations (be they TKD specific or a more general MMA).

• Has a referee that enforces rules that both parties are required to abide by for the match.
• The match is in a well-lit, dry, level, soft venue.
• The opponent is unarmed.
• The opponent is alone with no chance others will join in.
• Some sort of safety gear is usually involved i.e. cup, mouth piece, gloves etc.
• The opponent isn't trying to kill, maim or severely injure you.
• You get a break in-between rounds to catch your breath, get a drink, get some advice or a pep talk.
• If you've had enough, you can call a time out or tap out or simply quit and walk away.
• There is often an incentive or reward for competing and/or winning such as rank advancement, a prize or maybe cash.

As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;

• Situational awareness i.e. be aware of your surroundings.
• Factors such as avoidance, evasion, escape and de-escalation need to be taken into consideration and trained for where appropriate.
• Where there is no referee enforcing rules.
• You are likely alone and/or at some sort of a place or position of disadvantage.
• There are no rules.
• There are no breaks, water, advice or anything to assist you.
• The assault can occur in a parking lot, elevator, side street, your car, your bedroom, in the woods etc. It will likely occur in dim light conditions in any type of weather.
• The attacker may be armed, and should be assumed to be armed.
• The attacker may have friends more than willing to jump in.
• There is no safety gear, but likely a plethora of person-unfriendly objects like broken glass, traffic, walls etc.
• The attacker is looking to cause as much damage to you as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time possible.
• To quit is to die (or something possibly worse i.e. rape, love one killed etc)
• The goal is survival, the method is whatever it takes and is appropriate to the situation.

When looking at the difference in training methodologies, consider for the student and scenario;

• Do they always 'go for the knock-out', for points, for a submission? Is so, they've limited there response options.
• Do they have the option and/or opportunity to avoid or evade the potential conflice. Or escape or practice an verbal de-escalation skills?
• Do they have the option of using an improvised weapon?
• Does there opponent have the option of pulling a weapon (planned or improvised)?
• Does there opponent have the option of having his buddies jump in to help?
• Is the student required to observe certain rules?
• Do your students always train inside the Dojang? Are opportunities provided to train inside a vehicle, stairs, elevator, hallway, small room, on grass, on asphalt, on a sloping or wet or slippery surface?
• Do your students always where their uniform? Are they familar with what it would be like to be wearing tight clothing, foot wear, shorts and a T-shirt, a dress etc? Tt is one thing to be warmed up and stretched out and wearing loose clothing in the Dojang. It is quite another to try it in a dress in high heels, a pair of tight jeans, with a handful of groceries, a duty belt etc when you're not warmed up and stretched out.
• Have they ever trained in dim light conditions?
• Have they trained with visual/auditory distractions?
• Do we always use a closed fist when striking at the head while wearing gloves and padded helmets? A blow to the head with a fist in a SD situation may not be the wisest tactic. The chance of injuring the hand on someone’s head is fairly substantial even with a well-placed strike. That is why boxer as an example tape their hands and wear gloves. I'll say it again; the chance of injuring your hand on someone's head/face is fairly substantial. If this occurs, depending on the severity of the injury, it could very well limit your options for further SD. Anyone here ever try to manipulate a weapon with broken knuckles? Or a cell phone, or car keys? I've broken a knuckle before and my range of motion in that hand was limited for an extended period of time. Given that manual dexterity is already limited while under duress, you've just made it even harder by busting a knuckle or two, or spraining your wrist on someone's face. And there is no way to know ahead of time whether or not he'll actually be knocked out.
  
  This also doesn't touch on the possibility of blood borne pathogens the bad guy may be carrying. And now you've put yourself in a position of cutting your knuckles on his teeth or 'bleeding' him from the mouth or nose.
• Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the state statutes of force and deadly force? In consideration like bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death? Subject factors? What a reasonable person would do in the same situation? Are you required to retreat in your state? Does your state have a 'Castle Doctrine'? An instructor doesn't need to be an attorney, but providing the resources for the student to check into it and touching on some of the topics during class time.
  
  Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the O.O.D.A. loop? Fight or flight? Flinch resonse? Adrenaline responses such as tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of manual dexterity in the extremities? Considerations can include;
• Even powerful strikes in non-lethal areas can fail.
• A situation which starts out at less-than-lethal levels can quickly escalate.
• A proper joint lock, at the appropriate time, 'can' immobilize even an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) even if strikes fail and if properly applied.
• Be as patient as possible for the situation, look for openings.
• The attack will probably take place at the most advantageous time to the attacker and the least advantageous to us. We may be tired, sick, distracted etc yet still be forced into a situation.
• Some of these predators come in packs which backs them bold. And even being physically big isn't always a deterent.

Physical conditioning is also helpful during training, or at least encouraging it. Being physically fit can help us in several areas of a SD situation. It can also help if an injury has been sustained.

That is hopefully a good start for consideration/discussion. Be safe.

 

[puunui]

You have posted that same thing at least three or four times now.

 

[Manny]

You have posted that same thing at least three or four times now.

I think he is not, but even if you are right I will answer this tread.

Best wishes.

Manny

 

[Kong Soo Do]

You have posted that same thing at least three or four times now.

This is correct. I have posted this in various threads but decided it was worth consolidating into one thread.

Do you have anything constructive and on topic to add to the discussion? I've noticed several times that you have attempted to take threads off topic. I would appreciate you constraining yourself to the subject of this thread i.e. Self-defense training methodology or not participating in the thread at all if you cannot.

Thank you.

 

[puunui]

Do you have anything constructive and on topic to add to the discussion? I've noticed several times that you have attempted to take threads off topic. I would appreciate you constraining yourself to the subject of this thread i.e. Self-defense training methodology or not participating in the thread at all if you cannot.

Topics go off topic, that is just the way that it is on messages boards, where the discussion goes someplace else. In fact, in the three or four times you posted it, no doubt it was an off topic tangent on your part. But even saying that, I did try to stay on topic by asking you questions, which for whatever reason you chose not to answer. For example, your premise:

>It is only to discuss the SD training methodology in and of itself and how
>it differs from the sport model. For the sport-only instructor/practitioner
>that has only the focus or goal of sport competition

I asked what would be an example of a "sport only instructor", because from my perspective, there are very few. I can only think of two personally, who are completely focused on competition, and they do not speak of self defense at all, do not accept white belts or beginners, only elite athletes with the ability or desire to make the national team. They do not award rank, the athletes do not wear dobok, and only concentrate on competition training. So we need to define exactly what you think is a "sport only" instructor or practitioner, if you wish to compare that to your "self defense training methodology."

 

[puunui]

As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;

• There are no rules.

There are always rules. Part of self defense in my experience is that following the rules will often times prevent a situation from developing in the first place.

Here is an example. I told this story before. I was once in a restaurant which turned into a nightclub after ten. There was a bachelor party which was being held for a Samoan husband to be. There were at least 40 samoan gentlemen in attendance. There were about five or so bouncers in the place as well. At some point, a couple of University of Hawaii football players came in to drink. I think they had already been drinking I think, because they were a little loud and obnoxious when they came in. You could feel the tension from that from the beginning, or at least I could. The night continued on, when one of the football players took his shirt off on the dance floor. Within two minutes of that, teams of five samoans all at once moved towards each of the five bouncers, while other groups of five moved towards two football players. Suddenly, one football got taken down to the ground, and when that happened, the groups of five all pinned all of the bounders up against the wall, while the others basically mobbed the two football players. One football player was trying to hide underneath a table near the dance floor, while the five samoans on him were lined up, taking turns and doing full force front kicks to the chest of that guy, just like you would see in a martial arts class. It wasn't chaos or random acts of violence, but rather a cold calculated planned attack, because someone violated the rules.

At some point, they turned the lights on, I paid my bill and walked outside. As I stepped outside, cars of samoan males were still arriving to join in.

This whole scene could have been avoided had the football players maintained the composure and politely went to have fun, without offending anyone. In Hawaii, taking one's shirt off is a definite signal that someone wants to fight and when that football player did that, he basically lit the fuse on his own demise. Good thing that guy didn't violate another rule by pulling out a weapon. Had he done that, he probably would have gotten killed that night.

There are rules. There are always rules, especially on "the street". When someone is described as being "street wise" it usually means that they understand the rules, of the street.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Topics go off topic, that is just the way that it is on messages boards, where the discussion goes someplace else.

Sigh...

You have had a chip on your shoulder for over a week and you have made it your mission to derail certain threads that I've either started, or participated in because of your chip. While a thread may go off topic eventually, you try to get right in on the very next reply and immediately take it off topic or offer some sort of sarcastic jab. That isn't thread drift, it is trolling. Or you try to be the very next person after I've posted in a thread with a sarcastic remark or to misrepresent what I've posted. And, if you are off-line when I've posted, you'll seach back several pages, looking for any post I've made and again, offer a sarcastic remark. Then when I confront you on this, or ask you direct questions you whine and cry that I'm 'attacking you'.

I have tried three times (two in posts and once via email) to offer you my hand in peace. You have declined or simply not responded. Therefore your motives on any reply are suspect. Whereas I've tried to be as polite as possible, even when being direct with you.

Funny how you worry about breaking the joint of a bad guy because he might get arthritis 20 years from now and not like you when the weather gets cold but you don't mind disrespecting people on a discussion board.

The reason I have refrained from replying to you lately is because I don't find your posts to offer anything of value. As of this post, I've had 34 different people comment to me that they find nothing of value in your posts either. Specifically your alleged ATM story. And that is actually 'cleaning up' their comments.

So I'm going to ask you again, and with respect, to stay out of the thread as I don't want it derailed with your perpetual ping-ponging misdirection. Unless you have something on topic and positive to contribute. I can't make you of course. But the more you try to ping-pong and derail the thread the more people will see you for what you really are (and a lot apparently have already from those confiding in me).

As a note to the other readers: My apolgies for my directness with Puunui, but his antics and agenda have become very tiresome. I don't want this thread to become bogged down like he's tried to do with other threads.

I've also asked the Mod to change this to the SD forum as it would be more appropriate there. Thank you.

 

[puunui]

Sigh...

You have had a chip on your shoulder for over a week and you have made it your mission to derail certain threads that I've either started, or participated in because of your chip. While a thread may go off topic eventually, you try to get right in on the very next reply and immediately take it off topic or offer some sort of sarcastic jab.

How is asking you to define what is "sport only", which you wish to compare to self defense, doing all of that? You want a comparison to sport only, I am just asking you to define what is "sport only" for purposes of your comparison.

 

[jks9199]

Admin note:

Thread moved to General Self Defense

 

[jks9199]

Folks --

If you cannot play nice with someone, make use of the Ignore feature, please. Skip the personal shots, skip the name calling, and just ignore the person who sets you off. Because if you can't do that -- you're cruising towards having the Staff will help you ignore them. I don't think you want that.

This sort of thing is coming up way too often lately, and we're going to stop being tolerant.

Play nice. Or you won't be playing at all. If you don't think this applies to you, it probably does.

jks9199
Super Moderator

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I appreciate the thread being moved and hope that the thread gets back on track with the original purpose.

Thank you.

 

[mastercole]

The purpose of this thread is to go into the differences in training methodology, primarily focusing on the SD model. It isnt' to say one is better or superior to the other as each has a different focus and a different goal. So from the very beginning I want to make it clear that this isnt' an 'us' vs. 'them' thread. It isn't a we're great and you suck thread. It is only to discuss the SD training methodology in and of itself and how it differs from the sport model.

For the sport-only instructor/practitioner that has only the focus or goal of sport competition, this thread will probably be of little value. And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front and what is desired.

For the sport only instructor/practitioner that wants to take a look at some SD options for possible inclusion into the training, this thread may hold some value for you.

For the SD only instructor/practitioner this would be a good thread to 'talk shop'.

The premise that "sport" practitioners are not interested in SD is flawed, so everything else you propose is moot.

And this odd statement: "And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front and what is desired."

Are you kidding me? I don't clearly state any goal, about anything to anyone I invite to our athletic full contact training sessions. I say "come here, try this" I don't need to clarify anything about SD, tournaments, etc. People feel the value they get first hand. No need to convince them of anything. They either like it or they don't. Of those that stay and take the training, I guarantee you they have a greater physical and psychological advantage in a real self defense situation over non-athlete types who attend an 8-24 hour seminar or two over a year or so. I'm certainly willing to put my money where my mouth is, just ask Puunui.

See here is what you need to know. What you call sport Taekwondo, it's actually called Shihap Kyorugi, and the inventors of if, whom I know personally aka your seniors, said they created it for a stronger self defense base over what existed at that time. In earlier post, I gave details why. In the end, it was so well thought out, the felt they could approach the IOC with Shihap Kyorugi, instead of some other form of Taekwondo Kyorugi or Poomsae practice. The IOC looked at Shihap Kyorugi and said it made good sense, and excepted Shihap Kyorugi as an Olympic Event.

Gen. Choi hated that and hated South Korea for it, as he failed to get his ITF recognized by the IOC, so instead of focusing on making his ITF better, he focused all his effort into propaganda to damage South Korea (and American by extension). he threw all his support behind KIM, Il Sung's North Korean dictatorship and rallied them to his cause gaining their support and eventual take over of his ITF as a propaganda weapon against South Korea.

What is South Korea's most important product, from that day to this very day? Taekwondo. Taekwondo saved South Korea from the fate of South Vietnam, and Taekwondo's vast network or relationships has saved NATO from a 2nd Korean War, so far.

Shihap Kyorugi is itself defense based. According to its creators, the IOC and many others with higher qualifications than you or I. So your premise that it is not, is completely wrong, according to the senior men who made it, and I agree with them. The reason that you don't know about this is that you and your group have lost touch, or never been in touch with these seniors. If you had been, you would know this and not knowingly or unknowingly follow Gen. Choi's claims that Shihap Kyorugi is not self defense.

And that you regurgitate Choi's false negative propaganda against Shihap Kyorugi (and you are supposed to be from Hanmookwan roots?) My self and my seniors are very disappointed.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

The following is a summary of my hapkido syllabus.

At tenth geub: I start with brand new students by teaching them proper breathing, proper posture, stances, and how to move. Then I move into basic falling and rolling from a squat and basic kicks. I start with kicks before hand/arm techniques because hand strikes come more naturally to most people; kicking needs more work. Then I teach a basic, vertical knife hand strike. Then I start them on basic escapes and counters to same side wrist grabs, how to do a wrist lock, arm bar, turning break, hip toss, over the back throw, and sweep.

At 9th geub, I move them into basic blocking, add more kicks, move them into rolling and falling from a standing position, and start them with five step sparring. Finally, I move them into cross hand wrist grab defenses and counters.

At 8th geub, I add knee strikes and basic hand stikes: cross punch, hook punch, upper cut. Rolls and falls are now done with a jump. Then I move them into two handed cross hand wrist grabs. Some no contact free sparring is introduced.

At 7th geub, I add jabs, spear hands, arch hand, and palm strikes. Hooking kicks and the crouching spin kick are also added. Defenses are against both side wrist grabs (each of the opponent's hands grabbing each of the student's). Students move to three step sparring. Light contact free sparring is introduced.

At 6th geub, elbow strikes are added, kicks are done in combinations, rotating kicks are added, and students move into clothing grabs to the sleaves. Students move to one step sparring. Light to medium contact sparring is introduced.

At 5th geub, students move into front of body grab defenses, including hair grabs, lapel grabs, and belt grabs. Jump kicks are added at this level.

At 4th geub, students move into back of body defenses. Jump/rotating kicks are added at this level. Full contact sparring with protective gear introduced.

At 3th geub, students learn defenses against bear hugs and chokes, both from the front and from the back. Students move to free one step sparring; student A. throws whatever technique he or she chooses to and student B. must defend appropriately.

At 2nd geub, students learn defenses against a standing opponent from a seated position.

At first geub, students must execute wrist locks, throws, and arm bars against an opponent who is punching them rather than just grabbing them.

At dan-bo, students review the geub grade curriculum in its entirety in preparation for first dan testing.

At first dan, weapon defenses, fighting against multiple opponents, and use of weapons are introduced.

What is listed above is not exhaustive, but a summary of my syllabus. As students move through the geub grades, I point out the principles of the techniques and connect them from one scenario to the next so that they understand that they are not learning 72 separate hoshinsul techniques, but a much smaller number of techniques applied in different ways.

We do some scenariio based training, mainly the sorts of things that my students are most likely to run into. I don't go hog wild on this, as the idea of needing training for each and every possible scenario is precisely the trap that I don't want my students to fall into.

I also cover a lot of non-physical material, including Korean terminology (some at each geub), exercise of good sense, and good habits designed to reduce the chances of students being victimized. Nothing revolutionary. I haven't synergized, matricized, or simonized my curriculum. Just plain old common sense, which is surprisingly uncommon (lock your car doors, don't be jabbering on the cell phone as you walk through the darkened parking lot, etc.). I place a strong emphasis on keeping out of and getting away from trouble.

Also, I am very careful to separate techniques that are designed for improvement of flexibility and ballance from those that are more practical in nature.

My actual technique count is actually fairly brief, but I focus a lot on repetition and correctness, particularly early on.

Daniel

 

[Kong Soo Do]

The premise that "sport" practitioners are not interested in SD is flawed, so everything else you propose is moot.

You need to read posts with better comprehension skills. It would save you much typing. There are many instructors/practitioners that focus solely on sport training and have no interest in SD applications. Nothing wrong with that. And if they aren't really interested in SD applications then this thread would bore them. I also stated there are sports instructors/practitioners that focus on sport but have an interest in SD applications. This thread would have some details of interest to them.

And this odd statement: "And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front and what is desired."

What would be odd about a sports-only instructor not advertising they teach SD...when they don't?

Of those that stay and take the training, I guarantee you they have a greater physical and psychological advantage in a real self defense situation over non-athlete types who attend an 8-24 hour seminar or two over a year or so. I'm certainly willing to put my money where my mouth is, just ask Puunui.

I'll take someone that has completed S.P.E.A.R. or PCR or Boatman's course or CQDT over your sport guy any day to be very honest with you. I've seen both in action in the real world against real determined attackers. But if you'd like to spend your money, fly on over and I'll be happy to instruct you on SD training methodology. I've successfully taught about a thousand people, we'll make you 1001.

See here is what you need to know. What you call sport Taekwondo, it's actually called Shihap Kyorugi, and the inventors of if, whom I know personally aka your seniors, said they created it for a stronger self defense base over what existed at that time. In earlier post, I gave details why. In the end, it was so well thought out, the felt they could approach the IOC with Shihap Kyorugi, instead of some other form of Taekwondo Kyorugi or Poomsae practice. The IOC looked at Shihap Kyorugi and said it made good sense, and excepted Shihap Kyorugi as an Olympic Event.

I've noticed that you and your friend like to drop in all the people you claim to know. Perhaps you think it is impressive to name-drop or slip in all the pioneers that you claim to know. It isn't really. Be that as it may, if you think being accepted as an Olympic event means it qualifies as SD, you are really, seriously out of touch with what SD is and what it takes to attain it. No wonder you don't think SD can be taught, which is a silly statement to make anyway. I've been teaching it for decades. Before me, Charles Nelson and Pat O'Neill and Carl Cestari etc have taught it. And people have gone out and successfully defended themselves in real life against real, determined attackers. So I say again, with respect, if you think TKD being included in the Olympics makes it a SD art....you really need to fly in so I can educate you on what SD really is and how it can be taught. I'll even teach you for free.

And that you regurgitate Choi's false negative propaganda against Shihap Kyorugi (and you are supposed to be from Hanmookwan roots?) My self and my seniors are very disappointed.

I could care less about Choi. I have my opinion on sport martial arts from my observations of how truly ineffective it is in the real world. I'm disappointed in you if you claim to teach a defensive art to your students. Your doing them a disservice. I'm sure you make a great competitor with your training, but you have no idea what SD really is. That isn't meant as an insult, but a truth based on your comments in this and other threads. I know your buddies with Puunui, I know you think you need to rush to his defense. But I think both of you would be better served by putting aside your pride and your spirit of offense and try to learn something from this thread. A good instructor...a truly good instructor is constantly trying to learn so he can be a better teacher for their students.

Since this is a thread devoted to SD, the purpose for being here should be to discuss and learn about SD, not defend sports training methodology. If you think sports training methodology is valid for defense, simply start a thread on it and discuss it.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I'll take someone that has completed S.P.E.A.R. or PCR or Boatman's course or CQDT over your sport guy any day to be very honest with you. I've seen both in action in the real world against real determined attackers. But if you'd like to spend your money, fly on over and I'll be happy to instruct you on SD training methodology. I've successfully taught about a thousand people, we'll make you 1001.

In order to make sure that we're all on the same page as we read the exchanges between Master Cole, Puunui, and yourself, what do you mean by this?

Do you mean...

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refresher courses and nothing else?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refresher courses by LEO or military personnel?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to a class or two per week in a regular dojo/dojang?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to a class or two per week in a commercial dojo/dojang and regular practice between classes?

or...

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to three to five classes per week in a traditional dojo/dojang that does not have a competitive element and regular practice between classes?

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to three to five classes per week in a traditional dojo/dojang that has a competitive element and possibly a competition team and regular practice between classes?

Please specify which one or which ones you mean. If you are talking about the first one (seminar & refresher only), then I think that you need to seriously rethink your position.

Daniel

 

[Kong Soo Do]

We need to look at real world data to not only find out what is effective, but why and with that, how long is is usable for.

In regards to training programs like S.P.E.A.R. or Boatman or ISI, it is easily learned and it is retained in long term memory. The initial training is anywhere from 8-40 hours in duration depending upon which program we're talking about and if it is an instructor level or line staff course. Refresher training is provided every 12-24 months, with that training being about 2-4 hours in duration. Why? Because it has been found to be effective months or years after the initial training and it has been found that refresher training isn't needed any sooner. This is taking into account an average user. There are always exceptions to the norm on both sides. Now, I'm an LEO trainer who teaches these courses and has studied the data on long term retention. I'm not guessing. I'm not looking it up on the net. I'm telling you first hand what the norm is for our agency and the surrounding agencies.

We have a large data pool of Deputies and officers using the above mentioned training, on and off duty with a high % rate of success months and even years after initial training. In many cases, before refresher training was implemented. That is just simple fact. That's why we teach what we teach, how we teach and when we teach.

SD does not take years to learn. Does this mean that a person can't train it often such as weekly or monthly? Of course not. Like anything, it can be trained as often as desired. Does it mean that a person might not get rusty without 20 years of use? Sure.

BUT...

There is factual data on O'Neill's WWII combatives course which was 8-24 hours in length that was still successfully used by people that took the training decades later and are now in their senior years. I would encourage anyone to look into WWII combatives and their training methodologies.

Now a person is a person. A private citizen can learn many of the same things that a LEO or military learns in regards to SD, and often even more as the situations can be different. And many of these principles can be integrated into many existing systems.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

In order to make sure that we're all on the same page as we read the exchanges between Master Cole, Puunui, and yourself, what do you mean by this?

Do you mean...

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refresher courses and nothing else?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refresher courses by LEO or military personnel?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to a class or two per week in a regular dojo/dojang?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to a class or two per week in a commercial dojo/dojang and regular practice between classes?

or...

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to three to five classes per week in a traditional dojo/dojang that does not have a competitive element and regular practice between classes?

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to three to five classes per week in a traditional dojo/dojang that has a competitive element and possibly a competition team and regular practice between classes?

Please specify which one or which ones you mean. If you are talking about the first one (seminar & refresher only), then I think that you need to seriously rethink your position.

Daniel

We need to look at real world data to not only find out what is effective, but why and with that, how long is is usable for.

In regards to training programs like S.P.E.A.R. or Boatman or ISI, it is easily learned and it is retained in long term memory. The initial training is anywhere from 8-40 hours in duration depending upon which program we're talking about and if it is an instructor level or line staff course. Refresher training is provided every 12-24 months, with that training being about 2-4 hours in duration. Why? Because it has been found to be effective months or years after the initial training and it has been found that refresher training isn't needed any sooner. This is taking into account an average user. There are always exceptions to the norm on both sides. Now, I'm an LEO trainer who teaches these courses and has studied the data on long term retention. I'm not guessing. I'm not looking it up on the net. I'm telling you first hand what the norm is for our agency and the surrounding agencies.

We have a large data pool of Deputies and officers using the above mentioned training, on and off duty with a high % rate of success months and even years after initial training. In many cases, before refresher training was implemented. That is just simple fact. That's why we teach what we teach, how we teach and when we teach.

Thats nice, but you didn't answer my question in any way shape or form.

So I will ask again,

Do you mean...

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refresher courses and nothing else?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refresher courses by LEO or military personnel?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to a class or two per week in a regular dojo/dojang?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to a class or two per week in a commercial dojo/dojang and regular practice between classes?

or...

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to three to five classes per week in a traditional dojo/dojang that does not have a competitive element and regular practice between classes?

...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refersher courses in addition to three to five classes per week in a traditional dojo/dojang that has a competitive element and possibly a competition team and regular practice between classes?

SD does not take years to learn. Does this mean that a person can't train it often such as weekly or monthly? Of course not. Like anything, it can be trained as often as desired. Does it mean that a person might not get rusty without 20 years of use? Sure.

BUT...

There is factual data on O'Neill's WWII combatives course which was 8-24 hours in length that was still successfully used by people that took the training decades later and are now in their senior years. I would encourage anyone to look into WWII combatives and their training methodologies.

Now a person is a person. A private citizen can learn many of the same things that a LEO or military learns in regards to SD, and often even more as the situations can be different. And many of these principles can be integrated into many existing systems.

The bolded part above makes all the difference in the world. Frequency of training makes all the difference in the world. If you don't maintain your skills for a year or more, you may retain some of the knowledge, or perhaps all of it, but that knowledge will do you far less good without regular training. I will say more on the subject, but before I do, I would like to know which category or categories you are speaking of.

Thank you,

Daniel

 

[puunui]

Do you mean...
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refresher courses and nothing else?
...one lengthy seminar followed by annual refresher courses by LEO or military personnel?

I believe he already said number 1, perhaps number 2 as well. I think he also said that the training holds so that you only have to do the refresher course every 18 months, not annually. As for one lengthy seminar, I believe he said a seminar would last anywhere from 8 to 24 hours and you would be good to go, that training for self defense does not require a long drawn out process like how we normally think of when we think of martial arts training, which can go on for decades or a lifetime.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I believe he already said number 1, perhaps number 2 as well. I think he also said that the training holds so that you only have to do the refresher course every 18 months, not annually. As for one lengthy seminar, I believe he said a seminar would last anywhere from 8 to 24 hours and you would be good to go, that training for self defense does not require a long drawn out process like how we normally think of when we think of martial arts training, which can go on for decades or a lifetime.

Yes, thank you.

Let me use Hapkido as an example. Hapkido is what I would term an advanced art. You don't learn it in a weekend. It is an art that has principles that are usually taught in a building block manner i.e. you start simple and work into more advanced principles. That isnt' a bad thing, quite the opposite, it is an art that a person can really 'sink their teeth' into.

SD is usually simple and ugly. Let me use Boatman's edged weapon defense course. It is 16 hours long and you come out as one big bruise. But from the data, Officer injury rates in GB dropped from 87% to 16% in two years time. And the number of edged weapon altercations had gone up after implementation. It isn't magic. It doesn't make supermen/women. It is just a plain, simple, ugly, brutal gross motor skill technique that works well in the field.

Is it better than a 'martial art' edged weapon defense that may take longer to learn? I don't know. I would like to find some real world data on various arts edged weapon defenses in real altercations. But it is difficult to find. But it is quick to learn and has been proven to still be highly useful even up to two years later after initial training. That is a pretty substantial return on the initial investment of 16 hours training. Again, not saying it is better, but I can't find data to say other stuff works X percent of the time. If anyone has something I would like to see it please. It would be good to have something of comparison.

 

[puunui]

Let me use Hapkido as an example. Hapkido is what I would term an advanced art. You don't learn it in a weekend. It is an art that has principles that are usually taught in a building block manner i.e. you start simple and work into more advanced principles. That isnt' a bad thing, quite the opposite, it is an art that a person can really 'sink their teeth' into.

What is your experience with Hapkido as a self defense training methodology? Have you studied Hapkido?

SD is usually simple and ugly. Let me use Boatman's edged weapon defense course. It is 16 hours long and you come out as one big bruise. But from the data, Officer injury rates in GB dropped from 87% to 16% in two years time. And the number of edged weapon altercations had gone up after implementation. It isn't magic. It doesn't make supermen/women. It is just a plain, simple, ugly, brutal gross motor skill technique that works well in the field.

I understand Peter Boatman's course is geared primarily towards LEO. Also, do you have any personal experiences to share regarding the effectiveness of the Boatman course? Did taking the course save your life?