What Is Reality Based Self-Defense?

[Transk53]

Yes. I very much doubt anybody here is an anti terrorism expert.

Don't know and not bothered tbh.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Yeah we do. However, all these things come down to finance.

Your company might be able to get the courses financed by the government if the ports are important to them.

 

[drop bear]

Jim wagners take on the thing.

"Reality-based systems are those systems that teach the fundamental self-defense techniques that are found in both the traditional-based and sport-based systems, but go a step further by training specifically for modern conflict situations, and eliminating outdated techniques and training methods. Although there are many systems today calling themselves “reality-based,” because they see themselves as training more realistically and have abandoned nonessential customs and traditions, few of them are actually “complete reality-based” systems. In other words, they lack Pre-Conflict and Post-Conflict training in their curriculums and their Conflict training may be lacking simply because they have no real-world experience with criminals, abnormals, or terrorism."

 

[Chris Parker]

i did either link or read a link that effectively made the division into sport ,traditional and rbsd.

Okay… and how does that in any way invalidate the definitions I gave?

from memory that was the jim Wagner link that according to you popularized the term.

which is where i have made the division.

Yes, Jim coined and popularised the term… you really don't have to keep saying "according to you", as, well, that's the reality.

So it is not from me either. And as far as them being fraudulent. Well that would be up to you to prove. Because i will say they are not from a purely objective stance.

GIve me a break. You picked "Captain Chris" as an example of what you were then calling "an example of an RBSD strategy"… he's a joke, frankly. No-one legit gives him any time. Proof was provided at the time, if you recall.

Oh, and that's not what "objective" means, you know…

 

[drop bear]

Okay… and how does that in any way invalidate the definitions I gave?



Yes, Jim coined and popularised the term… you really don't have to keep saying "according to you", as, well, that's the reality.



GIve me a break. You picked "Captain Chris" as an example of what you were then calling "an example of an RBSD strategy"… he's a joke, frankly. No-one legit gives him any time. Proof was provided at the time, if you recall.

Oh, and that's not what "objective" means, you know…

It does not seem that the emphasis is moved away from physical techniques. But that specific objective based training is added on.

According to you applies until it is according to someone else. Is there a history of the development of the term rbsd according to anybody else?

I have heard more than capitan Chris claim that martial arts are geared towards smaller guys defeating bigger guys. Because technique and strength are these separate things.

you have made the same claims. Sport does not make these claimed because both people have technique. That is why they are matched up.

yes there has been some mis use of the word objective.

 

[Chris Parker]

It does not seem that the emphasis is moved away from physical techniques. But that specific objective based training is added on.

Yeah, that's how Jim started his exploration of it, and how he presents his system. But the simple reality is still that the differentiating trait of RBSD systems is an emphasis on the pre- and post-fight conditions and stages, as well as having a lower emphasis on "techniques" over "principles and drilling methods" designed for largely non-technical aspects of conflict.

You have to be able to differentiate between one systems take on it and the entirety of the concept, as embodied by multiple forms.

According to you applies until it is according to someone else. Is there a history of the development of the term rbsd according to anybody else?

What? I give the answer to where the term comes from, it's supported by Jim's own press, there are no other alternate theories or claims, but you're still arguing? How about you accept that I know what I'm talking about, and just say thank you for the information, yeah?

I have heard more than capitan Chris claim that martial arts are geared towards smaller guys defeating bigger guys. Because technique and strength are these separate things.

Oh boy, way to conflate everything and still come out completely wrong.

To begin with, you were not saying it was a "martial arts" ideal, you were saying it was an RBSD one… I was the one pointing out that the idea of technique trumping strength was a martial arts idea… next, you gave Chris specifically as an RBSD source, which showed that you are completely unaware of what RBSD is in the first place. Finally, all this shows is that you are really out of your depth trying to argue this with me here, so again, I suggest you take a step back, and recognise what you've been given.

you have made the same claims. Sport does not make these claimed because both people have technique. That is why they are matched up.

No, it's not why they're matched up, and yes, sports systems do make such claims (Judo saying that, with proper mechanics, and the principle of seiryoku zen'yo, a smaller person can easily throw a much larger, stronger one as one example, BJJ talking about applying the principles of leverage and a "scientific" application of force to beat a much stronger opponent for another…).

Do you want to try again?

yes there has been some mis use of the word objective.

Yeah… which is why I pointed it out. Objective is not the same as skeptical, which is the trait used when you refuse to listen to an answer based on the fact that you don't have any prior knowledge to base it on.

 

[Transk53]

Your company might be able to get the courses financed by the government if the ports are important to them.

Indeed. It is what is deemed "role needed" that has been talk of us taking on extra roles under the port marine framework. IE something similar to a PCSO. Well will demand there level of salary. Anyway, getting off topic so I read up some more on the OP subject matter. Thanks!

 

[Tez3]

Indeed. It is what is deemed "role needed" that has been talk of us taking on extra roles under the port marine framework. IE something similar to a PCSO. Well will demand there level of salary. Anyway, getting off topic so I read up some more on the OP subject matter. Thanks!

To be honest the government are more likely to move either the MOD Police Marine division in or the Navy rather than spend money on training civvies if they were that worried. the situation hasn't changed quite honestly since 1969 and the start of the Northern Ireland war, the security state is 'Heightened' as it has been for a long time and truth be told no extra training is actually needed. Rather than 'extra duties' I imagine an increased in personnel would sort.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, that's how Jim started his exploration of it, and how he presents his system. But the simple reality is still that the differentiating trait of RBSD systems is an emphasis on the pre- and post-fight conditions and stages, as well as having a lower emphasis on "techniques" over "principles and drilling methods" designed for largely non-technical aspects of conflict.

You have to be able to differentiate between one systems take on it and the entirety of the concept, as embodied by multiple forms.

So I could and pre and post fight and suddenly my mma is rbsd. Because there are sports systems and traditional systems that do just that.

 

[drop bear]

What? I give the answer to where the term comes from, it's supported by Jim's own press, there are no other alternate theories or claims, but you're still arguing? How about you accept that I know what I'm talking about, and just say thank you for the information, yeah?

i am not arguing. I am saying it is according to you. I haven't seen jims press saying he invented or popularized the term rbsd. As i said i couldn't find anything really conclusive on it.

 

[drop bear]

No, it's not why they're matched up, and yes, sports systems do make such claims (Judo saying that, with proper mechanics, and the principle of seiryoku zen'yo, a smaller person can easily throw a much larger, stronger one as one example, BJJ talking about applying the principles of leverage and a "scientific" application of force to beat a much stronger opponent for another…).

According to you.

look fighters are matched up by ability. Mostly. So it is generally accepted that they are at about the same technical level.

And that is hardly an accurate comparison. If you were to compare people it is generally accepted you compare the same people. So technique against strength wit no technique isn't really reasonable.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, that's how Jim started his exploration of it, and how he presents his system. But the simple reality is still that the differentiating trait of RBSD systems is an emphasis on the pre- and post-fight conditions and stages, as well as having a lower emphasis on "techniques" over "principles and drilling methods" designed for largely non-technical aspects of conflict.

You have to be able to differentiate between one systems take on it and the entirety of the concept, as embodied by multiple forms.



What? I give the answer to where the term comes from, it's supported by Jim's own press, there are no other alternate theories or claims, but you're still arguing? How about you accept that I know what I'm talking about, and just say thank you for the information, yeah?



Oh boy, way to conflate everything and still come out completely wrong.

To begin with, you were not saying it was a "martial arts" ideal, you were saying it was an RBSD one… I was the one pointing out that the idea of technique trumping strength was a martial arts idea… next, you gave Chris specifically as an RBSD source, which showed that you are completely unaware of what RBSD is in the first place. Finally, all this shows is that you are really out of your depth trying to argue this with me here, so again, I suggest you take a step back, and recognise what you've been given.



No, it's not why they're matched up, and yes, sports systems do make such claims (Judo saying that, with proper mechanics, and the principle of seiryoku zen'yo, a smaller person can easily throw a much larger, stronger one as one example, BJJ talking about applying the principles of leverage and a "scientific" application of force to beat a much stronger opponent for another…).

Do you want to try again?



Yeah… which is why I pointed it out. Objective is not the same as skeptical, which is the trait used when you refuse to listen to an answer based on the fact that you don't have any prior knowledge to base it on.

Yeah… which is why I pointed it out. Objective is not the same as skeptical, which is the trait used when you refuse to listen to an answer based on the fact that you don't have any prior knowledge to base it on.

you comments are subjective. Even with him Wagner's support they are still subjective.

 

[drop bear]

Oh boy, way to conflate everything and still come out completely wrong.

To begin with, you were not saying it was a "martial arts" ideal, you were saying it was an RBSD one… I was the one pointing out that the idea of technique trumping strength was a martial arts idea… next, you gave Chris specifically as an RBSD source, which showed that you are completely unaware of what RBSD is in the first place. Finally, all this shows is that you are really out of your depth trying to argue this with me here, so again, I suggest you take a step back, and recognise what you've been given

really? Because jim Wagner's link and your posts suggest a leaning towards tactical over technical as being one of the basic fundamentals of rbsd.

 

[Transk53]

Unfortunately cannot the full site due to filters, but watched the Gray Man vid by Wagner. Good advice I thought. There one slight thing though, he about blending in with normal looking clothes and not touristy or whatever. Fair enough. I am not going to sit in the Man U SAF main stand in an Everton shirt, I would stick like thumb. Well so does Jim Wagner due to the way he carries himself. I would imagine anybody that skilled would have the same issue blending with clothes only. At least in this context.

 

[Tez3]

Yes. I very much doubt anybody here is an anti terrorism expert.

Why would you assume that?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

There is an argument for it. The argument for it is "these are the definitions". That's the argument. There's nothing about personal preference at all.

It is specifically about "correct or incorrect"… that's how definitions work.

Well, no. If your argument was just "these are the definitions", then it would be simply assertion with nothing to back it up. What you are actually saying is "the definitions of these terms are x, because that is what the people who developed and commonly use the terms mean by them." That is how definitions work. There is no god of the dictionary handing out true meanings of words from on high.

What I mean when I use such terms as DefTacs, RBSD etc is the accurate definition of those terms. It really doesn't matter if such a definition isn't "universally accepted"… evolution isn't "universally accepted", that doesn't really have bearing on what's accurate or correct. The attempt to placate by allowing a definition to be stretched to accommodate whatever anyone wants to define something as is firstly inaccurate, secondly redundant, and thirdly a damn insult to anyone interested in actually knowing what the thing is in the first place.

In other words, I really couldn't care less if people agree or not. The definitions I presented are the accurate definitions. If you disagree, you'd better either have a better definition with more understanding of the topic than myself, or I suggest you accept that I know what I'm talking about, and choose to improve your own understanding by virtue of the information I'm providing.

I'd say you have an excellent case for "RBSD". It's a term of recent coinage that is normally used by a small group of people within a limited context. The definition you offer is a pretty good summation of how it is used by the person who popularized it and the people who profess to teach it. (Even though, as I pointed out earlier, some of those people undermine the message with some of their marketing material.)

I don't think you have nearly that level of support for your definition of "TMA." Frankly, there is no coherent or consistent usage of that term, either among the martial arts community as a whole or among those claiming to practice "TMA." Your suggestion is an admirable attempt at providing an intellectually coherent definition, but it's not an accurate summation of all the ways the term "traditional martial arts" is used by martial artists. (In fact there is no good way to summarize all those uses into a single coherent definition.) Therefore, you really have no real support if you want to say that your definition of "TMA" is the accurate definition.

So I could and pre and post fight and suddenly my mma is rbsd.

If you developed a system which primarily addressed pre and post fight considerations and happened to use your MMA as the basis for the fighting portion, then your system as a whole would be RBSD, and your MMA would be a small part of it.

Because there are sports systems and traditional systems that do just that.

Could you give examples?

look fighters are matched up by ability. Mostly. So it is generally accepted that they are at about the same technical level.

And that is hardly an accurate comparison. If you were to compare people it is generally accepted you compare the same people. So technique against strength wit no technique isn't really reasonable.

Well, in a real world fight, people are not matched up by ability, or size, or anything else except the circumstances of the fight, so comparing combatants who are mismatched in various ways is totally reasonable.

Heck, even in competition, you can have matches of greater technique vs greater strength. Look at most of Royce Gracie's fights.

 

[Buka]

That old boy, Confucius, said "Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated."

In the nineteen thirties, the Merriam-Webster dictionary adopted the term "Rube Goldberg" as an adjective defined as accomplishing something simple through complicated means.

To me, a lot of what's in Martial Arts is overly complicated. Because, we, as Martial artists, seem to over complicate things the longer we study.

Of course, we can always debate that.

 

[drop bear]

Why would you assume that?

because i read peoples posts.

 

[drop bear]

Could you give examples?

hammers gym in Victoria did self defence. That was primarily kickboxing but did sd with pre fight.

zen do kai used to do it.

sfca did it but they claimed to be rbsd so doesn't count.

most times whenever i have done self defence at least pre fight is covered. Sometimes post fight is done

 

[drop bear]

Well, no. If your argument was just "these are the definitions", then it would be simply assertion with nothing to back it up. What you are actually saying is "the definitions of these terms are x, because that is what the people who developed and commonly use the terms mean by them." That is how definitions work. There is no god of the dictionary handing out true meanings of words from on high.



I'd say you have an excellent case for "RBSD". It's a term of recent coinage that is normally used by a small group of people within a limited context. The definition you offer is a pretty good summation of how it is used by the person who popularized it and the people who profess to teach it. (Even though, as I pointed out earlier, some of those people undermine the message with some of their marketing material.)

I don't think you have nearly that level of support for your definition of "TMA." Frankly, there is no coherent or consistent usage of that term, either among the martial arts community as a whole or among those claiming to practice "TMA." Your suggestion is an admirable attempt at providing an intellectually coherent definition, but it's not an accurate summation of all the ways the term "traditional martial arts" is used by martial artists. (In fact there is no good way to summarize all those uses into a single coherent definition.) Therefore, you really have no real support if you want to say that your definition of "TMA" is the accurate definition.


If you developed a system which primarily addressed pre and post fight considerations and happened to use your MMA as the basis for the fighting portion, then your system as a whole would be RBSD, and your MMA would be a small part of it.



Could you give examples?



Well, in a real world fight, people are not matched up by ability, or size, or anything else except the circumstances of the fight, so comparing combatants who are mismatched in various ways is totally reasonable.

Heck, even in competition, you can have matches of greater technique vs greater strength. Look at most of Royce Gracie's fights.

Seems a bit convenient to be up against a strong guy who doesn't know anything.

sounds more like a bit of an ego boost. In that he might be strong but i am trained sort of thing.

but yes there are mismatches in competition.