What Is Reality Based Self-Defense?

[Chris Parker]

Okay. Reality based training isn't as common as might be thought, of course… but, so you know, there are a range of aspects that are designed specifically to create neural pathways (habits, what might take the place of "instinct", in a way), as well as methods of training within that instinct… what's hardwired, so to speak.

 

[Transk53]

Okay. Reality based training isn't as common as might be thought, of course… but, so you know, there are a range of aspects that are designed specifically to create neural pathways (habits, what might take the place of "instinct", in a way), as well as methods of training within that instinct… what's hardwired, so to speak.

Really. Right I have to look at this a bit more deeper. Good information Chris, thankyou!

 

[Buka]

I think Chris brings up a great point about "combatives", which would be different than reality based self defense (IMO). Military and LEO should probably go into the combatives discussion.

Might be easier/less confusing to discuss the thread that way. What do you guys think?

 

[Transk53]

I think Chris brings up a great point about "combatives", which would be different than reality based self defense (IMO). Military and LEO should probably go into the combatives discussion.

Might be easier/less confusing to discuss the thread that way. What do you guys think?

Amen

 

[drop bear]

I think Chris brings up a great point about "combatives", which would be different than reality based self defense (IMO). Military and LEO should probably go into the combatives discussion.

Might be easier/less confusing to discuss the thread that way. What do you guys think?

depends who coined these terms and why. Which i have no idea about the history of.

 

[LibbyW]

W.E. Fairbairn had some quite practical methods, or at least the army thought so when they recruited him. I liked his no nonsense attitude towards dealing with a possible opponent.
That said though, really anything that deals with Close Quarters Control (as opposed to Close Quarters Combat) will usually be reality based. Though nothing is ever flawless.
I thought Systema looked quite good until I saw all the auto-suggestive, touch-less take downs.
L

 

[Tez3]

I thought Systema looked quite good until I saw all the auto-suggestive, touch-less take downs.

Must admit I've not seen them in Systema, who is doing that? I've seen one of George Dillman's instructors do the no touch KO, which was amazing in the way people fell for the patter, a good performance too lol but haven't heard of Systema doing the same.

 

[LibbyW]

Must admit I've not seen them in Systema, who is doing that? I've seen one of George Dillman's instructors do the no touch KO, which was amazing in the way people fell for the patter, a good performance too lol but haven't heard of Systema doing the same.

I forget the guys name, but I'm sure he is a BIG name in Systema.
He can be seen in this video from 7.37

I couldn't really believe it at first, since everything else I've seen of Systema seems to have fairly decent (if not unorthodox) core work.
Still, I guess there is always one in every martial art.
L

 

[Tez3]

I forget the guys name, but I'm sure he is a BIG name in Systema.
He can be seen in this video from 7.37

I couldn't really believe it at first, since everything else I've seen of Systema seems to have fairly decent (if not unorthodox) core work.
Still, I guess there is always one in every martial art.
L

That bit is seriously bizarre isn't it! I've never seen that before I must admit. I'd really like to do that lol, imagine walking down the street when the sales are on and making people get out of your way I bet though like the no touch KOs you have to be a 'master' and spend over thirty years practising and then only do it on certain students because it is 'so dangerous'.
Of course his BO could be so bad he does literally push them out of the way with the stench!

 

[Transk53]

That bit is seriously bizarre isn't it! I've never seen that before I must admit. I'd really like to do that lol, imagine walking down the street when the sales are on and making people get out of your way I bet though like the no touch KOs you have to be a 'master' and spend over thirty years practising and then only do it on certain students because it is 'so dangerous'.
Of course his BO could be so bad he does literally push them out of the way with the stench!

No Lynx then

 

[Tez3]

No Lynx then

Doesn't look like it!
Apart from having a laugh at things like that it does always make me sigh too, it's what gives martial arts a bad name. When I saw that no touch KO at a seminar, it was after the same instructor had taught some really good self defence techniques then we were all called to watch while he and his students do the 'performance' and you have to ask why. It baffles me why good instructors will go for this fantasy type stuff. As with the video, there was some interesting things there I'd like to try but then you see that guy doing something that is so obviously fake. It had no place in the video, it has no place in martial arts.

 

[Transk53]

Doesn't look like it!
Apart from having a laugh at things like that it does always make me sigh too, it's what gives martial arts a bad name. When I saw that no touch KO at a seminar, it was after the same instructor had taught some really good self defence techniques then we were all called to watch while he and his students do the 'performance' and you have to ask why. It baffles me why good instructors will go for this fantasy type stuff. As with the video, there was some interesting things there I'd like to try but then you see that guy doing something that is so obviously fake. It had no place in the video, it has no place in martial arts.

Fine, if you say that, then I am comfortable that it is true It baffles me too. Why concentrate on technique, if you not possess. I spent hours on a bag, because you have practice that of what is preached.

 

[Chris Parker]

I think Chris brings up a great point about "combatives", which would be different than reality based self defense (IMO). Military and LEO should probably go into the combatives discussion.

Might be easier/less confusing to discuss the thread that way. What do you guys think?

This is something that struck me after I logged off to go to bed last night… I feel that one of the biggest issues in terms of recognising what is actually RBSD is in the initial word, "reality"… which leads people to the assumption that anything "realistic" is therefore "reality-based", and, by extension, RBSD. Simply put, that's not the case.

Combatives systems are highly realistic. DefTac programs are highly realistic. Martial arts can be highly realistic, depending on the art, the training methodology, and the context. But none of them are RBSD systems. In short, "realistic" does not equal "reality based".

The distinction is in the methodology and context/emphasis. "Realistic", particularly in terms of combative systems, DefTac systems, and so forth, means that they will deal with realistic attacks (commonly meaning, or at least implying, modern attack methods, although I don't feel that's necessary), and has realistic responses to them. RBSD, on the other hand, is a way of addressing the realities of the larger context of self defence, which does encompass realistic attacks and responses, but is really more concerned with what happens beforehand, and the aftermath.

The difference, really, is the same as saying that all pork is bacon, rather than all bacon is pork.

depends who coined these terms and why. Which i have no idea about the history of.

So… you're arguing because you don't know, rather than arguing because you have better information? Okay…

For the record, Jim Wagner claims to have coined the term "Reality Based Self Defence" in 1999, largely as a way to market his system (which he claimed, and still does, was the only "complete" self defence system in the world…) to the magazines etc… however, the concept already existed, and was being championed by people such as Geoff Thompson close to a decade beforehand… and, in my organisation, we'd been employing it since the mid-90's. We (and Geoff) didn't use the term until it gained popularity with Jim's marketing, but the concepts were already in circulation, so to speak.

The point is that RBSD is a specific categorisation, a particular approach and methodology… yes, it's realistic, but that's not the same as saying that anything "realistic" is RBSD.

W.E. Fairbairn had some quite practical methods, or at least the army thought so when they recruited him. I liked his no nonsense attitude towards dealing with a possible opponent.
That said though, really anything that deals with Close Quarters Control (as opposed to Close Quarters Combat) will usually be reality based. Though nothing is ever flawless.
I thought Systema looked quite good until I saw all the auto-suggestive, touch-less take downs.
L

Well, yeah, Fairbairn had a fair amount of realism to what he presented (well, in the main… his evocatively titled "Timetable of Death" was largely guesswork and hope, rather than having any basis in reality), but again, that's a combatives system, not an RBSD.

 

[LibbyW]

That bit is seriously bizarre isn't it! I've never seen that before I must admit. I'd really like to do that lol, imagine walking down the street when the sales are on and making people get out of your way I bet though like the no touch KOs you have to be a 'master' and spend over thirty years practising and then only do it on certain students because it is 'so dangerous'.
Of course his BO could be so bad he does literally push them out of the way with the stench!

Haha, could you imagine that - "Yeah I lost the fight...guy stun like a skunk"
L

 

[Xue Sheng]

I think Chris brings up a great point about "combatives", which would be different than reality based self defense (IMO). Military and LEO should probably go into the combatives discussion.
Might be easier/less confusing to discuss the thread that way. What do you guys think?

I think you may be right

This is something that struck me after I logged off to go to bed last night… I feel that one of the biggest issues in terms of recognising what is actually RBSD is in the initial word, "reality"… which leads people to the assumption that anything "realistic" is therefore "reality-based", and, by extension, RBSD. Simply put, that's not the case.

Combatives systems are highly realistic. DefTac programs are highly realistic. Martial arts can be highly realistic, depending on the art, the training methodology, and the context. But none of them are RBSD systems. In short, "realistic" does not equal "reality based".

The distinction is in the methodology and context/emphasis. "Realistic", particularly in terms of combative systems, DefTac systems, and so forth, means that they will deal with realistic attacks (commonly meaning, or at least implying, modern attack methods, although I don't feel that's necessary), and has realistic responses to them. RBSD, on the other hand, is a way of addressing the realities of the larger context of self defence, which does encompass realistic attacks and responses, but is really more concerned with what happens beforehand, and the aftermath.

The difference, really, is the same as saying that all pork is bacon, rather than all bacon is pork.

I was not sure I agreed with you at first but after thinking about it I do believe you are correct and that I need a definition as to what RSBD is supposed to be or a list of styles that are considered RBSD. From a CMA POV Xingyiquan was used by the Chinese military in WW II and Sanda is used today so that is most definitely combative which apparently does not make them RBSD... but I find myself also thinking of algebra where a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. Could it be possible that a combative could be an RBSD but an RSBD cannot be a combative? That is a legitimate question because at this point I am more than willing to admit I am not exactly sure what constitutes the label "RBSD

 

[drop bear]

So… you're arguing because you don't know, rather than arguing because you have better information? Okay…

For the record, Jim Wagner claims to have coined the term "Reality Based Self Defence" in 1999, largely as a way to market his system (which he claimed, and still does, was the only "complete" self defence system in the world…) to the magazines etc… however, the concept already existed, and was being championed by people such as Geoff Thompson close to a decade beforehand… and, in my organisation, we'd been employing it since the mid-90's. We (and Geoff) didn't use the term until it gained popularity with Jim's marketing, but the concepts were already in circulation, so to speak.

The point is that RBSD is a specific categorisation, a particular approach and methodology… yes, it's realistic, but that's not the same as saying that anything "realistic" is RBSD.

if its origins are vague then its meaning will be vague as well.

because everyone who invented it will claim they meant something different by it.

 

[drop bear]

Must admit I've not seen them in Systema, who is doing that? I've seen one of George Dillman's instructors do the no touch KO, which was amazing in the way people fell for the patter, a good performance too lol but haven't heard of Systema doing the same.

not at all uncommon.

 

[tkdwarrior]

That bit is seriously bizarre isn't it! I've never seen that before I must admit. I'd really like to do that lol, imagine walking down the street when the sales are on and making people get out of your way I bet though like the no touch KOs you have to be a 'master' and spend over thirty years practising and then only do it on certain students because it is 'so dangerous'.
Of course his BO could be so bad he does literally push them out of the way with the stench!

Hahahahaha! Exactly my thoughts

 

[tkdwarrior]

You could call it stunk mi do.....the no touch but smell martial arts...imagine if you only had one of those in your army you would nearly be invincible.

 

[RTKDCMB]

You could call it stunk mi do.....the no touch but smell martial arts...imagine if you only had one of those in your army you would nearly be invincible.

That martial art would be headed by Mi Sok Pong.