Reaction/reflex/response as defense-training strategies

[rbibbs]

This is a 'fringe perspective' on Coach's Dec 16 musing on the same subject. The "fringe" part comes from the fact that I'm 140# and 57yo, not likely to be a live combatant in either sport or street, but I can project the outcome objectively nonetheless, and if you're looking at defense-training strategies (as distinct from sportfighting strategies, which this doesn't really address) you might find yourself at a similar crossroad, wondering which path might best serve you.

In my teens and 20s, in the only "real" confrontations I've experienced, I won by freezing. In these isolated incidents, the 'opponent' was looking for a reaction, either an escalation or a retreat on my part; I gave him neither. Whether he was intimidated by my stasis ("I'm bigger, he's not cowering, maybe he knows something")... or bored ("I wanted a fight and he's not giving me one"), the situation was averted. "Won" meaning, I got the outcome I would have chosen, namely, nobody got hurt. These were postural confrontations, not attacks; I wouldn't want to have to "count upon" freezing as a widely-successful strategy.

Positive Reaction? Were I to engage in a contest of who could dump the most endocrinology into a situation the fastest.... well let's just say I wouldn't want to count on that strategy either. Very unlikely I'd be attacked by another 57yo, and if I were foolish enough to get into an 'escalation race' with a 20-something street punk, there is little question where that would end up.

Reflex? Let me tell you a story about that. I knew a female Karate blackbelt. Strong "reflex" background. She was accosted by a larger male. Thinking "she could handle him", she escalated. He got inside her strike range (grabbed her), and all her reflex solutions went out the window immediately. The outcome was very disfavorable to her.

Response. It's going to take me more dedication, sophisticated development of attributes, over a longer period of time. But I have already determined that in a "real life" situation, I can't win by getting more "out of control" than my attacker. Nor can I rely upon a narrow skill-set, learned in haste and isolation, that my attacker is very unlikely to respect the limitations of. The "response" option recalls my real-life defense successes... that I measured the threat and met it with calm resolve... and I'm firmly convinced this is the path to "most effective defense training strategy". And if I'm not attacked (the most likely scenario), I'll have a lot more challenging, engaging, productive time training than I would have either by practicing reflex forms or adrenal excursions.

Rick

[Ruairi Quinn]

Interesting topic of discussion, which took me a long time for me to get my head around.

Many of us on this board are martial artists or athletes who have devoted years and thousands of dollars/euro/pounds to their chosen disciplines. I'm sure that those on the board from an LEO / military background possibly train not just for the purposes of self development or 'what if?' but because there is a direct correlation between the quality of their training and how safe they are on the job. People coming from this perspective seem to me to be more willing to make the commitment which response-based systems require in order to offer maxim pay-offs. They are, as Coach Sonnon acknowledges in his article, long term and expensive investments.

The comparison of reflex-based systems versus response-based systems can be seen to be a bit of an apples and oranges debate if we recognise that these different training methodologies may be applicable and suitable for entirely different groups of people.

While there may be a limit to how sophisticated you can become while pursuing a reflex-based approach, these systems offer easily learned, easily retained skills to those with limited time, money and interest.

There is a reason, IMO, why the roots of much modern reflex-based training in the US draws on military combatatives and training methods : because these methods are designed to teach large numbers of people serviceable skills in the shortest time period possible, not to turn out adaptable fine-tuned martial artists each as unique as a snowflake.

Having this debate on another board, a forumite pointed out that in the history of warfare the officer / professional warrior caste has usually invested greater time in advanced training and refinement. Paralell to this the training of conscripts and grunts took place, happening as quickly and efficiently as possible, based on reflex/KISS principles. So taking the example of feudal japan, there were different varieties of bujutsu varying in sophistication and depth, depending on who they were intended for. Were these different bujutsu better or worse than each other? I think it's apples and oranges- both performed admirably according to their goals and the time-frames within which they worked (a life-time versus a few months).

In conclusion, I believe that reflex and response-based systems both have legitimate niches to fill. Problems pop up when proponents of the KISS/reflex-based approach totally write off any kind of soft work or fine martial skill as being unworkable under stress. Their methodolgies then become based on self-limiting 'beliefs', as I think Coach Sonnon says. Response-based systems have their own pitfalls, I'm sure.

*Editted to add:*
I was also curious about Coach Sonnon's LEO-orientated subject control system. What category would something like that fall under?

When training LEOs who may have limited interest / time, is the goal to impart immediately functional skills and approaches, or to enable long-term development - and to what extent are these two things mutually exclusive? Sorry in advance if I have the wrong end of the stick on this.

Ruairi

[circular]

Coach Sonnon's law enforcement training system is a response-based approach: Force-Responsive Subject-Control (http://www.subjectcontrol.com), of which Coach Sonnon is founding president and CEO of Force-Responsive Subject-Control, Incorporated - a corporation separate from RMAX.tv Productions for obvious security reasons.

FRSC is a physical program of decreasing arousal in high stress environment of hostile subject control. FRSC teaches personnel to improvise and innovate responses physiologically and emotionally proportional to the threat. He has taught FRSC to law enforcement worldwide with great success though he does not make public his activity in this regards due to non disclosure confidentiality agreements.

To our knowledge FRSC is the only time-sensitive response-based approach to law enforcement hostile subject control training.