reality based training

[envisiontj]

"You seem to take the position that its okay to punch people talking, or just walking down the street, is that right?"

Not sure where you see that.  No, I don't say you go around punching/attacking random people, BUT if someone chooses to engage in an altercation or to be too close to the vicinity of a current altercation, they are putting themselves there and will be taken out asap when possible.

I said:  "I, personally, am a big advocate of the "strike first" mentality, and teach this to my students.  It is upto the individual to be able to discern the whether the threat is real or not prior to striking.  If I or my students "feel" in danger, then strike and end it quickly."

So, if there is a perceived threat, then yes, attack.  Again, we must discern whether the threat is real or not.  As for the student at your daughter's school, I don't know the situation and can't say whether he was justified or not.  It is the perception of danger that people can get hung up on.  I teach, and feel, that if there is imminent physical danger then all actions necessary are justified.  If it is to protect ego or pride, of course not.

[Tim Vargas]

"You seem to take the position that its okay to punch people talking, or just walking down the street, is that right?"

Not sure where you see that.  No, I don't say you go around punching/attacking random people, BUT if someone chooses to engage in an altercation or to be too close to the vicinity of a current altercation, they are putting themselves there and will be taken out asap when possible.

I said:  "I, personally, am a big advocate of the "strike first" mentality, and teach this to my students.  It is upto the individual to be able to discern the whether the threat is real or not prior to striking.  If I or my students "feel" in danger, then strike and end it quickly."

So, if there is a perceived threat, then yes, attack.  Again, we must discern whether the threat is real or not.  As for the student at your daughter's school, I don't know the situation and can't say whether he was justified or not.  It is the perception of danger that people can get hung up on.  I teach, and feel, that if there is imminent physical danger then all actions necessary are justified.  If it is to protect ego or pride, of course not.

Then I do not see where we disagree, because I never said to not strike first if threatened.   

Take care

[Ghost Rider]

I never said anywhere to walk down the street and punch people at random just for talking.
Not sure where you got that from.
We are talking about self defense situations on the street when you are out numbered.
I'm sure if your about to get jumped by 3 or 4 guys in the street and its clear of that, you will be fine attacking first.
I would also like to ask with a genuine interest what you find beneficial about pity pat training.
I personally see no benefit in it, so maybe you can enlighten me with your perspective. 

[Dave Jones]

Again, we must discern whether the threat is real or not.  As for the student at your daughter's school, I don't know the situation and can't say whether he was justified or not.  It is the perception of danger that people can get hung up on.  I teach, and feel, that if there is imminent physical danger then all actions necessary are justified.  If it is to protect ego or pride, of course not.

I do not want to put words in GM Harper's mouth but that is where the disconnect is, I think.

We (at least in my State, by our laws) do not need to "discern whether the threat is real or not".
That is not my job or responsibility and that is NOT self defense; that is taking turns.  What matters is if I THINK it is real.
If I feel that I -or a proxy- am in imminent danger then I can act accordingly.
If I go overboard so the level of violence I employ is outside the scope of being proportionate to the threat then that is a different problem.

dis·cern   di?s?rn/  verb

perceive or recognize (something).
"I can discern no difference between the two policies"

If someone has already acted aggressively while continuing to run their mouth in a threatening manner then I will act immediately if I feel it is necessary.
I will hit them first, hard and often.  Usually as soon as they put their fists up and while saying clearly to all bystanders that "I do not want to fight".
My hands will already be up (and have been when I have used it on the streets), in what looks to be a passive stance.
We call it "CNN Tactics".  Nowadays, it might be called "YouTube Tactics" - fight and behave like it will be on video from somewhere.
But anyone with some training knows that open hand strikes are usually faster and finger jabs to soft targets have more range.

Feeling threatened and knowing you are threatened are not necessarily the same thing.

[Dave Jones]

The founders built that reputation, but today many are living on a reputation they don't themselves hold up to.

See, I cannot get away with saying something like that directly but I can easily agree with a GM who CAN  ;-)

[Tim Vargas]

I never said anywhere to walk down the street and punch people at random just for talking.
Not sure where you got that from.
We are talking about self defense situations on the street when you are out numbered.
I'm sure if your about to get jumped by 3 or 4 guys in the street and its clear of that, you will be fine attacking first.
I would also like to ask with a genuine interest what you find beneficial about pity pat training.
I personally see no benefit in it, so maybe you can enlighten me with your perspective.

GM Harper,

it was a misunderstanding...i didnt read where there was a threat, so there is no disagreement...

slippy slap or whatever u call it had been taught at many kajukenbo seminars, even the one u put together in frsno back in 2005 or so, with Sijo present.   although u were not teaching, the instructors were showing their techniques to beginners to advance, for children to men and women of various ages without pounding them into the ground.   was it beneficial for those involved?  for me it was beneficial, because it got me back into training, and helped my kids to learn from the instructors without being injured.     i have been to a semiinar where my are was popped out of joint because the one performing the technique had no control, and could no longer participate, but had to observe from the sidelines the rest of the seminar.   so, there is a time and place for all things, just not the same for all people.

thanks for the thread Sir & your time

[Dave Jones]

I personally find "kenpo patty-cake" (as I call it) to be the downfall of many training drills that might be serviceable otherwise.
I've seen Kajukenbo black belts stop punches short and "slap" when training with me at seminars.
My esteem for them went down as soon as they did it.
One of my white belts told me later that they had "..no respect for a so-called black belt who has never taken a hit."
He was incredulous that these were "Kajukenbo Black Belts".

Giving me a false sense of security and capability is not doing me any favors.
As for the person who is always pulling punches before they even hit and slapping like a 10-year old girl..well, you usually fight the way you train.

DISCLAIMER:  My daughter is a 10-year old girl and probably hits harder on accident

[sibakgreg]

As this is a "Reality Based Training" thread (thanks Tim), I would like to add a couple of points. 
First, I believe it's important to understand some of the actions our fear level can trigger.  I personally have had a tendency to over-react during verbal confrontations.  The result is I have been in more scraps than I needed to get into. 
With that in mind, and with that experience, we add a non-physical confrontation scenario into our street fight drills (without the defender knowing in advance that the attacker/attackers will approach the line without crossing it).  The defender gets the adrenalin dump, and learns to use 'verbal judo'.  Our Law Enforcement students are best at this type of training. 

Secondly, while I totally agree with hard style reality based training, there are strikes/kicks/throws that cannot be performed full on in training without significant injury.  No slipply slap stuff, but we need to pull power from delivery on some things.  You all know the ones I'm referring to, no need to list them. 

So, we need to add "control" to our reality based training. 

Thanks,
Greg     

[Tim Vargas]

thank u sibak for the post, exactly what i was trying to say.    the definition of slipy slappy for me is control...but i have learned from various kajukenbo instructors, including GM Sotelo, that the use of slaps, rakes to eyes, ect are beneficial to distract and set up for kill, so to speak.  in the philipino martial arts also us parries and other such beneficial drills/techniques that r not foreign to kajukenbo and that i continue to pass on.

[Ron Baker]

Would anyone agree that recognizing "imminent danger" is a matter of training and experience?  It sure would seem that a person with significant expertise in combat situations, can realize when there's a real danger vs. a verbal trash-talking situation.

For me, real-life experience tells me that if someone is within striking distance; AND they won't respect my space; AND they're "selling their resume"; then they're an imminent threat. 

So what is striking distance ... ?

[sibakgreg]

My striking distance is anywhere inside where I begin to feel crowded, usually a step or two beyond reach.  If I feel threatened, I will strike first. 

[Dave Jones]

So what is striking distance ... ?

"Action beats reaction within arms reach." -- Reactionary Gap principle
So if they are close enough to touch you within a step or so then they are close enough to deal with as you see fit, at least around here.
Any closer and they will have First Strike Advantage.

By definition they have the means (range) to harm you and they have already displayed aggressive intent.

[GM ALAN M. REYES]

To understand reality based training one must go back to a beginners thoughts, whether he/she wants to maintain a level of expertise during the training process, “Do they want to get hurt, in the Beginng stages even in class situation where the possibilities of maiming a fellow student just because a adv student is more powerful that the latter. The CONTROL portion is first on the mind, yes proving that he is worth his salt, IS the first "HOW TO" train. Are they always be soft? Or are they going to turn  a new leaf and accept the training, with the hardness intended. If soft is the answer then soft you will be,,, Change to a martial art program again that suites you
“potential” is a attacker that breaks my “circle of defense” and be in close proximity, reaps the rewards of the years of training that I have acquired.
So in a training/seminar situation, time is of the essence, “starting slow to learn the technique, then slowing progressing to an ability that suites your body" frame, an expertise, then “full on” when the situation warrants it. You have developed a “Brawn and thinking” student ,,,,one that has learned the skills of hitting hard and on the money, and methodically taking the attacker apart.thru knowledge. Hammerfist maki rawa, chopping makirawa or heavy Bags,,,,all helps in building the required power to drop an attacker…..But Getting hit just to prove that you can! That goes under the heading of GIVE AND TAKE, So I guess or as close as I can get to it,,,,is that. You will learn the technique because an Instructor took the time in teaching you right, by inserting knowledge, vital point concentration, raising your ability from a white belt to a more advanced student.
Reality training has its points ,, but to reach that, taking stairs upward is a real process, if  you fall,,  get up and keep on moving. And when you are ready. jump in with both feet, doing it you will either be better at it and understand the concept or you will leave,  no losers  just time to reach your goals. Have a partner that can handle the pounding,not too much around.
 All techniques can be lethal, It  depends whether you have to use it or same technique different reason, "As in an inside open ridge hand technique "do I make him choke or crush his windpipe my choice!"
With all due respect
[/b]GMReyes

[Patrick Campbell]

Much of the reality that martial arts / self-defense instructors miss is what the body and mind goes thru with someone who has a stress response to imminent danger or possible death. There is a science behind the psycho-physiological responses and  whole training methodolgies based on this "warrior science" that both the military and many law enforcement agencies use to properly train and ready their officers for mortal combat. What is the mind of the assailant(s) going thru? What types of criminals are there and what motivates them? There is psychology, epistomology, anatomy and biology - so many sciences impact the management and responses to violence and how we train to prepare for these fast and furious moments.

Consider Bruce Siddle and PPCT as a start with much of the knowledge of stress and training to operate in it. There is Gavin De Becker and so many other combat scientist out there who have contributed their lives to the study of stress response and our ability to understand it and prepare for it in battle. If this knowledge and understanding is good enough for police and military then I guess it's something I need to understand and apply to a self-defense and survival model.

Although we can never really duplicate an actual mortal engagement we can employ training strategies and techniques that evoke some kind of stress response where the heart rate increases, vision narrows and hearing is obscurred - cognitive reasoning becomes jumbled and clouded, etc...Bull in the ring,etc..are some good tools if used properly. The idea is that the student must know that he can/will respond and his/her response must be able to neutralize the threat even with no forwarning and even when faced with something he has never trained for.

For knife defense as an example, we might graduate to a "shock" knife once the basic technique is learned. Have a few of these knives with one of the assailants in a Bull in the Ring scenario. Paint ball guns, etc...anything that produces the idea that there is pain involved - something just beyond our apparent control. Stress response is evoked and heart rate will climb gradually or skyrocket in accordance with the person's belief that they are equipped to respond appropriately to the threat. Most people as an example "stop" after being stabbed in a training scenario - as if somehow they lost the drill and should "try again." If you stop after being cut in the street because you think you lost the drill then your chance of survival is virtually nil. Neutralize the threat then quit. Most don't train this way. Can I neutralize the threat if I remove myself from the area? Of course I can. We may not always have this option but so many people don't train with this option in mind.

If I walk into a convenient store and see that there is a gunman pointing a gun at the teller what do you think I am going to do? Go back out the same door I just walked in and get the heck out of there and call the cops. So many people box themselves into having to use force when so often we really need to use our brains.

The idea I am throwing out there is that there is much to consider and there is a large body of literature out there that explains the survival stress response, training methodologies, how criminals think, ethical and legal and civil concerns with the use of force, etc....If we speak about "reality-based" we need to have a good picture of reality - science gives us this and the science is there for all of us to study.

In a way we are all martial scientists. We base training and techniques on observations and assumptions etc.... our founders used the street as a laboratory to test their assumptions and techniques. What do we base our assumptions on today? Part of our observations should be on understanding the science behind stress response and survival motor skills in humans.

Keep self-defense responses simple and universal in approach if possible. There is so much written material out there today that will get most instructors in the "reality-based" ballpark in terms of understanding what they are up against not only in their own ability to respond to imminent danger but also their ability to develop and teach sound strategies and techniques that students can develop confidence in quickly. Confidence is crucial. This in and of itself will probably keep a student's heart rate at a manageable level when faced with potential or real mortal threat. Train the way you fight really means something to me and understanding the science behind it all is a good start.

Just some food for thought.

patrick

[grand master hemenes]

ok flash back when grand master gaylord started black belt class there was about 30 to 40 of us all black belts most with big egos including my self in a short time there was about 7 of us left becouse of the no hold back techniques like for exsample punching attact three gm gaylord put one of my black belts head  threw the sheetrock in my school gm gaylord pulled him out threw him on the floor and said you guys get that! that day two black belts got knocked out cold doing the punching attacks one got cholked out until he passed out. so one of the higher black belts and i will leave his name out, went to gm gaylord and said he needs to lighten up some as these guys had to work the next day! and he did but the classes were never the same after that day....but that was old school back then and all of us old timers can relate to that kind of traning, but you can train hard right now but times have changed and you cant trian old school ! and you guys can post we still trian that way but if you did you would have no students to pay your rent today , not saying your not traing hard just not old school if so you will  get sued for everthing as soon as you get a broken arm teeth kocked out ect its sad but time have changed......................


                                                                        grand master hemenes