What Is Reality Based Self-Defense?

Sure… but risk management and avoidance strategies (which is more what you're referring to there) isn't the same as de-escalation… that's something that's applied when you're in the early stages of an actual situation, and are past the avoidance opportunities… which is the context and stage you find yourself in when de-escalation is required.

Sure. But in simplifying the concept of SD one flows from one to the other.

A consensus isn't needed, honestly. What is needed is an understanding of the context of the applied term… to take the "paralyse" situation from the other thread, Dirty Dog was applying the term in a medical, clinical context, whereas drop bear was talking more about causing the opponent to stop what they're doing (stop attacking), both mentally and physically… in essence, "paralysing" their forward movement, even if only momentarily.

Yeah, but I'm not convinced DB recognises the difference and at the very least he was using loose terminology. His description pretty much implied that as soon as the trachea was grabbed a person would 'freeze', again a similar concept. No trained person is going to react that way no matter however you want to describe it.

Again, it comes down to RBSD being a particular method/approach to the concept of self defence, which can be expressed in a number of ways… but the core definition/meaning of RBSD doesn't change. Again, think of my Kenjutsu analogy… there are literally dozens, if not hundreds of Kenjutsu systems, which will share some commonality (they all teach the combative use of a sword, for instance), but even in that, the variations are boundless. That doesn't mean that Kenjutsu defies classification, as it's too broad… just that a broad definition can still be applied without contravening the variety that exists.


Something someone else wrote:
Putting things into categories can be helpful, but we have to remember that the categories are usually artificial.

So, leaving off the "block/no block" idea (that's something that we might cover at a later point…), you're saying that you start with a "set response", yeah? Cool, that's (again) what I was expecting.
Only for the purpose of the exercise. I just wasn't being specific in what the response should be as different people will train different responses. I would normally train it with a likely/realistic response rather than an artificially contrived one.

Okay… to me, there are issues with that drill, unless you're intending it to show the perceived flaw you're mentioning at the end there, yeah? I guess my question is, in which part of my quote is this a response to? I'm a little lost here…
Yes, I am pointing out the flaw in the drill but it is the type of drilling you will see in most places.

I was expanding on:
And as far as not teaching specific responses, are you sure you're not? I mean, they might not be something that pre-existed before you showed them in that class, but if you're giving something as a response to an attack that the students are following, that's a specific response… it's not the only one, or the only possibility, of course… but it's still a specific response (in that moment). Or do you show ideas, and get the students to find whatever they might be able to get out of that? That's an approach I've seen (I'm honestly not fond of it, but some like it), so I'm just getting some clarification here…


Okay, so it's a drill to try to demonstrate… something… but not something you'd advise, although you're not saying not to do them? Yeah… still a little lost here, mate…
I'm suggesting that drills are fine as long as people understand why they are drilling. Some styles have hundreds of drills so that every possible attack is covered. The problem arises when the attack is varied, so I don't have any set drills. We used to call them 'pre-arranged sparring', one of the many things I abandoned some years back.

That said, I agree that going in, looking for a particular lock etc is a recipe for failure.
Yet you will read time after time someone who can't use them declaring that they don't work. If you look deeper I would be sure that in most instances they are attempting to move to that technique from the wrong start point, something you could only do with brute force.

Okay, was this all about the Shu-Ha-Ri concept, then? Yeah… it's a lot more than that… and, in a way, nothing mentioned here really goes beyond "Shu" anyway… to be honest… as it's really not anything to do with "ways" of drilling things…
No. Shuhari was in a different context. As you say, what I was describing would only be 'Shu'.

Hmm, I'd suggest that kata (itself) is actually a fairly definite term in a way… it's particular to a culture, fairly loaded with meaning (from that culture), and, while it has a range of ways it can be expressed, it is always, at it's heart, the same thing.
Interesting that you qualified your response, "in a way". That's exactly what I was saying. The terminology is the same but the meaning can vary between styles. For example my kata has no set interpretation as it is a single person sequence of techniques. The application of those techniques is up to the individual as the original meaning of the kata was never passed down, if indeed it ever existed. I have never seen your kata but from what you have written in the past I am assuming that with your two man kata the meaning is evident.

There's a big difference between a pre-arranged sequence of actions and a kata, is what I'm saying…
Sure.


I guess my biggest issue with arguing about definitions is that, oftentimes, the arguments are coming from persons who don't know what the terms actually mean in the first place… so they're arguing about what they think they mean, rather than what they actually do. I'm only concerned with what they actually mean. Frankly, other opinions couldn't mean less to me in this regard.
Again, true. But it is very difficult to produce a definition that is water tight. If we could do that a billion lawyers would suddenly be without a vocation.

Well, yes and no… the issue with that approach is that you end up discussing anything but RBSD, as no-one really even takes what it is on board in the first place. You might as well talk about methods of training dogs, and have someone talking about how tigers learn in the wild, saying that they aren't beholden to the strict definition of "dog" or "training"… the discussion can't actually be what it's supposed to be about.
Read any thread on MT. How long does it take before one of the dogs grabs it and tries to run off with it? Some people are set in their ways and will never take anything on board. Oh what bliss, to know that your cup is always full. :p

Hmm… no… it's an argument as to why it's essential to have one in the first place.
The arguement is valid, the outcome somewhat different. Achieving a definition that is acceptable to all is only a remote possibility.

Well, I'd class them as Combatives systems as they are military based, and fit the hallmarks that would be expected. I mean, my systems include weapon defence and disarmament, followed by using the weapon against the opponent… but that doesn't make them "Combatives" systems, as the context, origin, aims, and more don't fit such hallmarks.
Yes, but ...
Your weapon systems are integral to your traditional training in the same way that I would say weapons are integral in a combatives system. In RBSD the use of weapons has to be addressed. How it is treated causes the overlap.

Sure… but it's only the most important part in that moment. And that's only so you can survive to get to the "post fight" stage.
Without learning to fight you may not reach the "post fight" stage in any meaningful way. So I would still argue that although all the elements of RBSD are important, the ability to physically take care of yourself is your insurance policy when the other bits have failed.
 
Of course not, but one should strive to make it that way. The former is just paraphrasing me.

I don't disagree. I am suggesting that there are more factors that lead to violence than a guards people skills.

And that the general public is sold a lie regarding what a guard can reasonably achieve.
 
because i de escalate for a living against real people who want to hurt me. And that dedicated training in de escalation is generally terrible.

to achieve the hundreds of fights i have attempted to de escalate tens of thousands. Only a small percentage result in violence.

So your conclusions are wrong due to your lack of practical knowledge.

Bluntly, I am going to call BS on this.

"[T]ens of thousands"? Really?
10,000 fights over a 10 year period would be 1000 fights per year. That means that if you work 5 days a week, every week, with no vacation, you'd be involved in 3.8 fights per day.
And that is for a SINGLE ten of thousands.
For 20,000 (which is the absolute minimum to qualify as "tens of thousands", you'd have to be involved in 7.6 fights per day.
Where's that "BS Flag" smiley?

bsmeter.gif


We will have to settle for that...
 
Bluntly, I am going to call BS on this.

"[T]ens of thousands"? Really?
10,000 fights over a 10 year period would be 1000 fights per year. That means that if you work 5 days a week, every week, with no vacation, you'd be involved in 3.8 fights per day.
And that is for a SINGLE ten of thousands.
For 20,000 (which is the absolute minimum to qualify as "tens of thousands", you'd have to be involved in 7.6 fights per day.
Where's that "BS Flag" smiley?

bsmeter.gif


We will have to settle for that...

And then if you read the post that would be fights avoided not engaged in.

And its 20 years.
 
So if my maths is correct. 20 ejections or refusals a week. Over 20 years with 4 weeks off a year for holidays puts me around 19,000
 
So if my maths is correct. 20 ejections or refusals a week. Over 20 years with 4 weeks off a year for holidays puts me around 19,000

I'm not real familiar with the industry - would "refusals" be when you don't allow someone to enter the club where you are working?

I know you have to treat each rejection/refusal as a potential fight and be prepared accordingly, but what percentage would you say are actual imminent fights (where someone is just about to start throwing punches if you don't calm him down)?
 
Read any thread on MT. How long does it take before one of the dogs grabs it and tries to run off with it? Some people are set in their ways and will never take anything on board. Oh what bliss, to know that your cup is always full. :p


They could be like this though........

duty_calls.png
 
I think it might be time to get some clear definitions out there:

TMA (Traditional Martial Art): A systematised and codified approach to a particular culturally based expression of violent encounters, focused on expressing lessons through combative techniques and other methods. Not necessarily designed to deal with modern (or even "realistic") violence.

Combatives: A militarily based close-quarters method focusing on direct, gross-motor, reliable methods against common, gross-motor attacks, including the use of small weapons, and against military style weapons. Sometimes called CQC (Close Quarters Combatives). Commonly aggressive.

DefTacs (Defensive Tactics): A common training method employed by Law Enforcement and similar, this is a simplified gross-motor approach to give application of a tactic, or group of tactics, in a versatile, easily adapted manner. Commonly taught in a "dove-tailed" approach, and dealing with modern forms of violence. Might be aggressive, defensive, passive, controlling, or anything else that the tactic and application demands.

RBSD (Reality Based Self Defence): A training methodology focused on modern understanding of the broader concept of "self defence", with an emphasis on the pre- and post-fight realities. While it may contain physical combat/engagement methods, these are commonly minimalist. Primary concepts include HAOV (Habitual Acts of Violence), recognition of pre-fight indicators, effects of adrenaline, de-escalation (passive and aggressive), being a "hard target", body language, legal realities (before, during, and after), common assault patterns, social (ritual) violence, psychological aspects (after-effects, PTSD, "limiting beliefs", social programming and conditioning, and more), and so on.

As you can see, TMA, Combatives, Def Tacs (and modern martial arts, sports martial arts, and so on) are largely concerned with "the fight", or the engagement. That's their focus. RBSD is differentiated by not focusing on that, although it is dealt with. That's the biggest difference.
Are you proposing these as a common understanding of the terms?
 
I'm not real familiar with the industry - would "refusals" be when you don't allow someone to enter the club where you are working?

I know you have to treat each rejection/refusal as a potential fight and be prepared accordingly, but what percentage would you say are actual imminent fights (where someone is just about to start throwing punches if you don't calm him down)?

It depends on your approach. If you have good technique. Not that many.

about to throw punches is relative. There are plenty of people who say they are going to. But probably wont.
 
because i de escalate for a living against real people who want to hurt me. And that dedicated training in de escalation is generally terrible.

to achieve the hundreds of fights i have attempted to de escalate tens of thousands. Only a small percentage result in violence.

So your conclusions are wrong due to your lack of practical knowledge.
If you have tens of thousands of people wanting to hurt you them maybe you should have a closer look at your personality. :)
 
I bounced and worked the door for ten years. De-escalation is based on communication skills and reading people. Gin mills (bars/clubs) are first and foremost a business. Fights are bad for business. If they happen on a regular basis you'll get closed down. At least here in the civilized world. :)

As a police officer, you know which clubs have a rep for trouble, a rep for drugs etc. The workers at that club better have good communication skills dealing with responding officers, too.
 
I bounced and worked the door for ten years. De-escalation is based on communication skills and reading people. Gin mills (bars/clubs) are first and foremost a business. Fights are bad for business. If they happen on a regular basis you'll get closed down. At least here in the civilized world. :)

As a police officer, you know which clubs have a rep for trouble, a rep for drugs etc. The workers at that club better have good communication skills dealing with responding officers, too.

I worked security for years for the state and some of that in hospitals and one of those hospitals with a mental health and detox unit and that is exactly it "De-escalation is based on communication skills and reading people"... and fights are bad for your health but sometimes unavoidable... I described much my experience in that business as "talking people out of doing the unreasonable things that they have decided to do" ....but I do not think in all my years there I had what I would call a fight, but I did have a lot of take down and restraint situations.
 
It depends on your approach. If you have good technique. Not that many.

about to throw punches is relative. There are plenty of people who say they are going to. But probably wont.

So, as a clarification to your original statement regarding your numbers of de-escalations and fights, would it be accurate to say that you have had close to 20,000 professional encounters with the potential to turn violent (especially if handled badly), and around 10% of them actually did end up turning violent?

(Not implying at all that the encounters which turned violent were necessarily handled badly.)
 
So, as a clarification to your original statement regarding your numbers of de-escalations and fights, would it be accurate to say that you have had close to 20,000 professional encounters with the potential to turn violent (especially if handled badly), and around 10% of them actually did end up turning violent?

(Not implying at all that the encounters which turned violent were necessarily handled badly.)

yeah pretty much.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top