two different concepts mentioned here. The likelihood of being attacked and the survivability of an attack.
to say this about the survivability is a legitimate concern. But it is a concern of personal significance it does not really apply in a general sense. i struggled with this idea for many years when had just started. maybe we all ask "will what i am learning actually work?" it doesnt apply in the macro view. in general this is an empty argument because we have to much evidence that says otherwise.
Totally agree with you that there are two things at play: the real danger vs the perceived risk. For example, there is a perception that if you are shot with a gun, you are deadmeat. But statistically, unless you are shot in the head or the heart, your chances of surviving a gun shot wound are very good. Over 95% if you make it to the hospital alive. In this case, I'm with you that there is a difference between the odds of an attack, and the survivability of an attack. I am strictly pointing out two things. First that, regardless of one's behaviors, the odds of an attack are very, very low. I have posted actual numbers in the past, but the stats are easy to find. AND, as for survivability, even if you are attacked, your odds of surviving an attack are very, very good, regardless of your level of preparedness. Most people, even if they are woefully unprepared or helpless to defend themselves, will survive an attack. That's not my opinion. It's a fact.
the argument that there is no data to support the idea is the equivalent of saying that we cannot say for sure that one billion plus one billion equals two billion because there is no possible way to count each item one by one to come to such a conclusion. the fact is that we can add one plus one, and we can extrapolate the answer to the larger question.
Well, no. We can actually quantify math. By definition, math is literally quantifiable. That's not the same at all and highlights my point. We can surmise that there is benefit to training, and we can speculate that training might (possibly) help, and that some training could (perhaps) help more than other training. But we cannot quantify it. The benefit may be negligible or even non-existent, and we don't know.
We know that to play pro sports takes many hours of practice. Tiger woods did not get good at golf watching Tom and Jerry cartoons.
the critic would say "well thats sports"
right, but is Tiger Woods good at putt-putt golf? Or is he good at shuffleboard?
We have data about how effective cop training is for cops. They train, then they go use their training. They get individualized feedback based on their performance and on a macro level, we accumulate data.
We have data about how effective MMA training is for MMAists. They train, then they go use their training. They get their feedback and we get data.
We have data about how golfers train for golf in exactly the same way. But we have no data to suggest that being a great basketball player is good training for golf, even though we know that Michael Jordan is really good at both. Do you see what I mean? We might speculate that being an elite level basketball player contributes to golfing skills, but we're moving away from the data and into belief.
And I am in no way saying that cop training or MMA training (or other kinds of self defense training) have no benefit. I'm saying specifically that we don't know for sure one way or the other, because it's not quantifiable. I'm not saying there is no benefit. We believe there is. And that's not the same thing.
back to the motor cycle helmet. the helmet gets left in the saddle bags rather that on your head. the significance is that these skills need to be brought into play and thats not an easy thing to do. the skills often get left behind when we need them. Rory Miller has said that aircraft fighter pilots are only recognized as an "ACE" after 5 wins. that for the h2h fighter your skills will not come into play until about the same amount of fights.
i have mentioned many times that the brain needs to make connections. there is a lot of MA training out there that does not resemble the kind of situations that we will encounter on the street. this leaves the brain looking for a proper response and neural connection and it wont find anything. the brain needs to make the connection therefore training must look like what we will encounter.
practice must resemble the reality.
Mind set and the ability to do violence. most people naturally do not want to engage in combat.
After WWII the US military changed the practice targets from a round dot to a human like silhouette. the result was a dramatic increase in the firing rate.
Dave Grossman has written a few books on this subject but it is nothing new. Ardarnt DU Picq wrote about the same conclusion is 1870. ( i have a suspicion that Grossmans conclusion was nothing more than reading Du Picq'a work)
Yet we know for a fact historically and have the data to show that PROPER training will and does overcome the reluctance to engage in combat. This leads to the question on why someone would be reluctant to fight.. the answer is simply fear. its obvious that if the soldier fires his weapon that return fire is a given result. so it becomes evident that with proper training fear can be overcome.
the ending question then is "Is your training giving you the tools to be successful" not an easy question and many do not like the answer.
I agree with all of this. Particularly this passage:
"Rory Miller has said that aircraft fighter pilots are only recognized as an "ACE" after 5 wins. that for the h2h fighter your skills will not come into play until about the same amount of fights."
He's talking about the transition to application, something I've gone on about probably more than I should.
