Civilian Self Defense DVD

[Shane]

Are there any plans to produce a DVD on RMAX training for civilian self defense?

Thanks,
Shane

[Coach Wilson]

Shane-

We have thought much about this subject and probably will in the near future. The challenge (at least for me) is the INCREDIBLE responsibility that goes with such a project. Most products for self protection are little more that technique driven, if-then scenarios that are dangerous because the arm the person with little except false hope. We have one in the works that approached self-protection from the physical, mental, spiritual, emotional and social standpoints. We will let you know when we have a date in mind. Smile.

Always,

Joseph

[Shane]

Sounds great! I look forward to the DVD.

Thanks,
Shane

[Coach Larson]

Actually this sounds like and good book and DVD combination project.
The physical aspects are best covered in a visual medium whereas the other areas might be more fully explained through good writing.

Whatever format it turns out to be I think its a great idea for further development.

[Coach Jones]

It WOULD be a great project, and i'm sure we'll address it at some point, but like Coach Wilson says, there is a large degree of personal responsibility that comes with something like that.

Though their are many products out there on the topic, I have never seen one that I was impressed by. Not that I was never impressed by what those teaching the material could do, but what they can do and what others can learn to do from the video are two, entirely different things.

"Self Defense" in my opinon, is a tricky concept. You have to look at what exactly you're defending yourself against, where and when and in what context. You need to look at legal ramifications of your actions as well. When I trained in Burmese Bando there was a saying, "it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". It makes a lot of sense, but one overzealous moment can end up sending you to the slammer unless you understand the legalities. More than one well trained knife fighter is in jail right now because of just that.

Legalaties aside, there is the matter of being prepared for that type of situation. I'm fond of saying that the fight starts after you get hit. If you've never been hit, any plan you may have for self-defense can quickly go right down the toilet. Dealing with the stress and pressure of a self-defense situation takes a lot more than learning a few techniques that are "supposed to work".

One of the major reasons that I have shifted, in recent years, away from the self-defense realm and more toward the combat sport area, is that I believe strongly that what is learned from engaging in combat sport is not only helpful - but vital. There is far to much philosophising about what would and wouldn't work in a dangerous, self-defense situation. Everybody has a plan until they get hit.

Like Coach Wilson says, "a fight is determined most often by the one being willing to go the furthest the fastest." Consistent training, conditioning and practice of skills and their application under resistance and pressure will absolutely give you an edge but there is no secret technique, no failproof move to make you attack proof.

Pay attention to your surroundings, avoid dangerous situations and if you find yourself in the unfortunate situation of having to defend yourself against an attacker - be more prepared than they are.

[Coach Wilson]

Beautifully said!

[Chuck Kechter]

^^ +1 Total agreement!

[Shane]

Totally agree with the above statements. How about a combat sports for the street DVD?

Thanks,
Shane

[Coach Jones]

Well...

Now there we run into another set of problems.;)

The thing about combat sport is that it's that it's combat sport. On of the biggest misunderstandings regrding MMA is that it's like a "REAL" fight. It's not. There are rules and specificities there that make it unlike a "real" fight.

As the MMA pros get better and better, those who excel will be those who specialize in the sport of MMA. Performing the way in which they need to to excell under the given rule sets. This has already started to happen in a big way.

So, Combat Sport for the street, would sort of be an oxymoron. I'll give you an example:

Back when I was teaching traditional martial arts, I placed a heavy emphasis on fighting. My guys had to be able to fight...period.

While we worked with the variable of takedowns and the possibililty of grappling, we did so in the normal manner for that time. That meant training to defend takedwowns from strikers. It wasn't until much later that I realized that a takedown from a striker was a hell of a lot different than a takedown from a grappler.;)

Now I have never been attacked by one guy in a real situation. It's always been more than one. I'm not talking here about some high school, meet on the quad and have a "straightener", i'm talking about situations in which you are FORCED to have to defend yourself. Groundfighting, in that situation is one of the most fundamentally dangerous things you could do. No matter how good you are and how easily you can control the enemy on the ground, the enemy's pal is right there able to do anything and everything while you're helpless on the ground.

I was in a situation many years ago where some friends and I were out on the town and were confronted with one of these situations. We were threatened and one of the guys doing the threatening took down a friend of mine. Now he could have been a great grappler, but no one could tell you because about a second after he applied the takedown he caught me steel tipped boot to his head. (it was the eightees for god's sake so I make no appologies for the steel tipped boot). This is a very real problem when thinking about grappling in the street.

However, if you were in a situation where you were taken down by one guy out of a group, you better know the ground game, or be willing to work their head like a bowling ball.

The point is that combat sport provides benefits to self-defense beyond the sportive aspects but it isn't a real fight.

With Flowbox, i'm focusing on the sportive aspects, but that doesn't mean it's limited to that. The same goes with Coach Sonnon's Saddle and Leglocks program.

It all comes down to being prepared. More prepared than whatever challenge you may have to face. Work the tools and skills, be in condition, and then if unfortunate happens you turn your hat backwards, tell yourself "this is gonna hurt" and get with it.

[jerry.mobbs]

The best self defense is avoidance, along the lines of detect, defuse, disperse, or any other similar model. Often situations can start off benign and escalate, in this instance, you should automatically pick up the cues and you can be ready using whatever 'style' you train in. That being said the most dangerous situation you can find yourself in is the ambush. Here the attacker makes the rules and your body will respond with its instinctive gross motor reflexes.

You will turn to face danger, the hands will come up and your head will retreat into your neck like a turtle. Study the police car cam videos where they do a roadside stop and the person being checked responds violently and unexpectedly. You can see the same effect from helmet cams in Iraq, look at the instinctive reaction to an IED going off. Its always the same response to unexpected danger.

Its during this moment that you are your most vulnerable. What you need to do is understand this instinctive reaction and then ensure that your response is simple and effective. This response will buy to time to adjust to your new situation and you can then use whatever style you train in to respond.

For some interesting insights into this, look at Tony Blaur's lectures here:

http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/CrossFit_BlauerWhyStartleFlinch.mov

http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/CrossFitBlauer_Train4Ambush.mov

http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/CrossFit_BlauerArnoldSurviveAmbush.mov

http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/CrossFitBlauer_SpearIsBridge.mov

[Coach Jones]

I agree with everything you've said here Jerry, with the exception of the reaction based approach being the best training method. There is still a lot of debate as to whether or not you can actually train, and if you can train it, maintain it.

The debate focuses around the fact that you are always training. Everything we do conditions us for one thing or another. If you engage in the practice of reaction/adrenalin based training it becomes very difficult to keep stimulating the response. Once it's been stimulated with one training situation or another, the fight or flight response reduces as the training continues.

When not training, every load noise, aggresive reponse or surprise that you opt NOT to react to "de-conditions" you from the results achieved previously. The idea being that you would need to hire someone "pink panther style" to leap out from behind buildings at you consitently to maintain that level of response.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not condemning it at all. Just saying that there is still ongoing debate as to exactly what is and isn't possible with reaction based training.

[jerry.mobbs]

Your not training anything. To truly unexpected events, the body always reacts this way to an ambush. The helmet and car cam evidence is very compelling. You see the same initial reaction whether they are trained soldiers reacting to an unexpected event whilst on patrol in Iraq, or a guy getting mugged at the ATM. Think of it as a primal gross motor skill that kicks in when your body senses it is in danger. What your developing is the ability to react to the 'oh dear' moment, understand what is going on and then react.

The point is to accept that your body will react this way whether you like it or not, and use this reaction as a bridge to your next move. That move can be boxing, muay thai, bas rutten street defense or whatever you desire to train in.

In situations where its not an ambush, then you can use pre contact cue awareness to skip this step and go straight to whatever style you want.

As to the training aspect, then you have to make the training realistic and scenario driven. Thats were using high gear comes in. It allows you to work the drills, incur a penalty if you get hit (you feel it), allows full use of visual and auditory cues (you can see, speak and hear).

We used to do a training cycle before deploying to Northern Ireland. Think of a mocked up town, with manikins in windows that will actually talk to you, and cameras every where. The training was designed to simulate yours and your teams reaction to unexpected events (which are the most life threatening). In every evolution, you would analyze on video tape what every person did and said, and without fail they responded with a startle flinch. What your training for is how to use startle flinch to your advantage for those first 2 or 3 seconds, and then how to respond after that.

[Coach Jones]

I get what you're saying. I understand the concept. What I was saying is that it is not universally accepted that you can train in a manner that would allow you to use that startle reflex to your advantage as many systems train to do. I'm not making a call one way or the other. There's compelling arguements on both sides.

It would be interesting to see how individuals respond before and after in equally random situations, meaning equally and genuinely startled. What i've seen from the adrenaline response people, is as you say, comelling evidence of the problem and what seems like sound methods for addressing that problem, but not enough evidence of results after the various training methods for me to have a definite opinion one way or the other.

[jerry.mobbs]

Yeah, I see where your coming from about it not being universally accepted.

Empirical evidence based on my own scenario training, and studying cctv footage strongly suggest that everybody reacts to a genuine ambush in the same way, regardless of their level of training.

If I recall, in Ireland there where about 6 Battalions on the ground, thats 3600 guys doing 6 month stints, thats 7200+ guys per year who go through the training. They all reacted the same way (startle/flinch) to genuinely startling events and startling events that they knew may be coming, but not when, how, how long or how many. Thats a lot of data to suggest it works.

At the start of the training, you would always have a disproportionate use of force (someone shoots the journalist whose in a crouch position with a camera in their hands), by the end of it, you always had a much more measured and appropriate response.

What differs is that the trained individual accepts that startle flinch will happen and uses it as a cue/transition to whatever response they train for be it long gun, short gun, box, run or whatever.

Good discussion.

[Coach Wilson]

Great Discussion! I really like what everyone is saying here. Jerry- I am glad that you brought up Blauer, as his research and work is, in my opinion, the standard that all else is compared to. In fact our own CST instructor, Tony Torres, is one of Blauer's top instructors and has a wealth of real world experience on this front. If we are lucky maybe he will get chance to jump in here.

I agree with everyone for the most part. I think that using Scenario training is great, especially if you only have a short time to train people. For example, when I am training SWAT officers and/or special ops guys, I may only have 2-3 days to prepare them. With this type of time frame and multiple skill and experience levels, scenario training is ideal, because it is an instant awakening about not only your skills, but also your access to those skills

Jerry wrote:

The point is to accept that your body will react this way whether you like it or not, and use this reaction as a bridge to your next move. That move can be boxing, muay thai, bas rutten street defense or whatever you desire to train in.

This is a great (and insightful point) that most people just don’t get.

If we are talking about training for self-protection, another important distinction is to “know your role”. For example, when I train Sec-ops or SWAT or any LEOs, you are training for a specific job, to control resistive behavior takes them with you or ACT (arrest-control-transport). This requires a specific goal set pre and post engagement. Training civilians that do not have the same goals, tools and liability concerns as officers is completely different in my opinion. Simple example is, wit a civilian you can use a “stun and run” or “hit em and forget em” philosophy that you cannot use with Police officers.

I have to run, but please keep this thread going, it may just knock us ff the fence as far as making that Self-protection DVD available. Smile.

[Coach Jones]

I agree, great discussion.

To keep it going...

The part that creates the "blur" for me has to do with the control. It seems indisputeable that the startle reaction happens regardless of level of skill in fighting. So I think that's a given.

Beyond that, it's the matter of the implication that you can train in a manner that allows you to transition from a "panic" to "intelligent response" faster. This is I think the major point of the arguement against.

Something like a SPEAR position, makes a lot of sense tactically for example but the question seems to be whether or not that position (just as an example since we're referencing Blauer's material) is conditioning a more intelligent respose while IN "the panic", or whether it's a trained response "after the panic". Whether or not it reduces or keeps under control the startle reflex or simply conditions that response AFTERWARDS.

Because the various methods include not only the "reaction" but an acquired skill, the question as to whether it's the adrenaline based reaction being modified or simply the practitoner getting more comfortable a set of variables therby reducing their adrenal response (panic).

One of the arguements I read, and i'm apraphrasing here because its been a while, correlated the response based methods with the reaction of a person when walking out into the rain.

Like in a panic induced reaction, the head turtles up, the same occurs when walking from cover out into the rain. If I remember the article correctly, this reaction remains consistent unless the physical process is interupted first by a conscious acknowledgement and decision to physically resist that reflex. The idea was that because the change in behavior could only be controled by conscious effort previously that it was not able to be altered.

Now here's a question...

If we assume for a second that we can't modify or control our bodies reaction to the panic, could it not be that reaction based approaches are really just ways of training resposes in roughly the same manner that combat sport would albeit with very different goals.

Example:

In boxing, one of the things a fighter trains is counter-punching. Counter punching is based on setting up an opponent so that they go to a given punch, and already having an answer to that punch allowing the fighter evade and, like the name implies - counter.

Another thing fighters learn is "trigger" or "reaction" punching. This is based on feel. When you feel the punch hit low on your left forearm it means the head is open to that side.

Now, bare with me a second here....

So based on training something like that reaction we could assume that the fighter learns to react faster and specifically to that feel and being comfortable with that would respond in that manner. He would be faster to the trigger than someone untrained, but he would still fall prey to the bodies "panic" in the same way as everybody else when something fell outside of that comfort zone.

So it seems to me that the question is not whether the panic reaction is real, it is. It's whether or not that is something that we can condition and/or control or whether it's something that we just have to accept and deal with.

Again, let me say that i'm not arguing one side of the fence over another. I think it's an interesting topic from a self-defense perspective. Can we really condition an unconscious response?

[Coach Haggard]

This is a great discussion. I wanted to add an observation to something Coach Wilson said regarding training people with different goals and rules of engagement.

Without getting into the discussion between Jerry and Coach Jones... even after the initial reaction, when you are subjected to a situation that is continuing at a high level of stress (LEO fighting a combative suspect(s) or military in an ambush etc) you will continue to act according to your training and experience. I don't know how many times at the end of a pursuit or in some other similar situation where I found my service pistol in my hand without any conscious memory of having drawn it. I am sure this has something to do with my focus on the events as they were unfolding and the things my conscious mind had to deal with (all the variables), while my subconscious took care of the things I had done so many times that they were now hardwired reactions that just happened at the appropriate time (due to consistent frequent training and experience). My most recent and dramatic example was when I was hit by the big rig that ended my LEO career. During the time when I was waiting for the cavalry to arrive, I used a witnesses phone to coordinate the responding units, advise dispatch of the current situation, and got the needed ambulances and tow trucks responding. I also conducted a (verbal) initial assessment on the other involved parties, got them to put all their paperwork together for the investigating officer, and managed my cervical spine precautions while waiting for my help to get there. I wish I could say I did all this because I was some kind of bad @$$, but here is the reality. I was trained in restoring order from this particular type of chaos and had reinforced that training with about 10 years of experience at work. I just did what I do when confronted with that type of situation.

Here is the point. I once expressed my concern to an instructor who was teaching weapon disarming skills in a class I was attending. The skills were actually very effective given the nature of the situation that they were to be used against. In this case, we are talking about taking away a firearm from an opponent that is closer than I would like to be (but it was not a statistically unreasonable type of assault). Here was the problem. When the students successfully obtained the firearm during the static drill in which we were learning the initial principals, they were completing the drill by stepping back and shooting the assailant with their own gun. They did this every time, reinforcing the habit as they became comfortable with the skill. As Coach Wilson said, different tactics are appropriate for people in different situations. I would have no problem with this last scenario if it was being taught to members of a military unit during an extreme close quarters combat module. That would be appropriate under most of their rules of engagement. When you are in combat, different rules apply. Even as an LEO, this was no good. When he is holding the gun on you, all bets are off and anything goes. You definitely want to be the one who "Goes the farthest, the fastest" as Coach Wilson says. Once you obtain the firearm, though, the rules change a bit. You still have a pretty wide variety of options, of which deadly force may still be appropriate depending on the other variables (other hostile parties, weapons involved etc). Can you dump the magazine into this undoubtedly deserving gang banger...well, that depends. What you don't want to do is train to finish that way every time and reinforce that reaction so much that it is hardwired and you will do it without thinking about it. That is a good way to end up in jail for a long time.

Another difficulty with the Civilian self defense training DVD would be related to this I think. Members of the military and LEO's are constantly training and being made aware of the rules of engagement and what constitutes reasonable force. They are used to making decisions based on that knowledge even when the situation changes moment to moment and the appropriate levels of force change with the circumstances. Skills can be trained and acted on while your mind is free to make decisions about what is appropriate based on your observations of your unique situation. Most of the people I know that have never been in either of these services, have probably never really thought about what constitutes reasonable force. They have, in some ways, more options than their Law Enforcement friends because they don't have the goals of ACT that Coach Wilson mentioned. Escape is not only a viable option, it is usually a good idea (especially since many of my civilian friends would not think of going far enough, fast enough in an encounter that called for the higher levels of force, including justified deadly force). I am not condemning them here, just pointing out an observation that I have made. We tried an experiment once and opened our Force Option Simulator to the public with some of our old simulations in it. The public people that participated were given firearms and pepper spray containers with lasers in them and our training officer ran them through the same scenarios we use regularly. If you make the decision to use force, the machine will record where your shots (or pepper spray) go. You are then evaluated on your handling of the situation. We made some interesting observations. A large number of the untrained people that went through the scenarios failed to act decisively when they needed to and would have been severely injured or killed. A smaller percentage used grossly inappropriate force and would have been criminally hosed. Some of these even shot people in a situation that could have been handled verbally...ooops. This is the problem I saw with the training scenario I mentioned earlier.

That said, I would love to see something like this happen. It is much easier to find quality training material if you are military or Law Enforcement. I would love to see a quality product addressing the needs of civilians. I think, with the Faculty we have here, that is a definite possibility!

This was a little longer than I intended. I am a bit tired, I hope I was clear.

Dennis

[Bear]

Firstly I want to say what a mature debate this has been to date (and I hope not to derail it!!). Very rare to see this particular topic discussed with anything like the level of openness this one is moving through.

I wanted to add my 0.2 cents. There must be a degree to which if you are truly startled then you react with a startle response. Presumably this is inbuilt. Whether you can fine tune this response seems to be hotly debated and I don't have an answer.

However what truly startles you or not must be a question of training. For example in the street if someone went to hit an "untrained" civillian then you would expect them to be startled (and respond naturally). If someone goes to hit a boxer in the ring then the reaction is not the startle response but the one that has been (hopefully) consistently trained.

But if you startle that boxer (I am thinking of Mike Tyson biting his opponent on the ear.......) then the response was the classic startle response. I suppose what I am suggesting/asking is that if we truly expect the unexpected then we cannot be startled because it expected and providing we have trained the appropriate response then all well and good. It is a bit like the old japanese Zanshin philosophy.

Then if we have an event that is startling we will react on that basis --flinch. The quality of training from the flinch position, GPP, SPP etc. will then come into play.


I remember hearing/reading about an old martial art master who used to imagine when he went to the market that people would attack him from whatever position they were in and what the most likely attack would be (dependent on an understanding of body mechanics etc.) and then how he would react to such an attack. In this way he cultivated, what I think Bruce Lee called, quiet awareness.

So I think there are lessons from both ends of the spectrum... and I wonder whether these have to be either or alternatives (like striking vs. grappling why not both?) or can be combined to best effect.

I have trained in both ends of the spectrum (RBSD and TMA) and from my perspective I see benefits of both... and disadvantages too.

Anyway apologies for long response and I hope some of it makes sense....

Bear

[JasonE]

However, if you were in a situation where you were taken down by one guy out of a group, you better know the ground game, or be willing to work their head like a bowling ball.

Quote of the day! :D

Here's a visual reminder of where to place your fingers for the bowling grip: :eek:

[JasonE]

This really is a great discussion. I've participated in a variety of training methods, including some that use scenarios to induce a "fight-or-flight" adrenaline response to perceived danger. Each approach I've experienced has positive things to offer depending on what you wish to develop.

One aspect of producing a self-defence training video that has not been discussed is that the end users will all interpret and employ the material in ways that cannot be anticipated. I am thinking not only of reasonably well-balanced folks that already practice martial arts, but all of the less-balanced folks that may or may not have any prior familiarity with combatives. I've trained with high-strung folks that always carried a pistol "just because you never know", with deeply suppressed people that had difficulty raising their voice in anger, with delusional guys that dreamed of being "d3adly str33t ninjas", with otherwise well-meaning folks that always fought "all-or-nothing" in practice sparring, with impatient people that felt a few weeks of regular practice was too long of a commitment, with those who can't stand inflicting/receiving any kind of pain, etc.

The first advice I usually give people is to find a good instructor and stick with it. The second advice I usually give is to get in shape.

I've noticed that my own startle reflex has greatly decreased over the years. My level of arousal simply doesn't shoot up the way it used to, and I have more control over how I respond to unexpected stimuli. This isn't to say that I don't flinch, but it seems that I have become much less prone to flinching. This has also carried over into various martial arts practices. In situations where I have been faced with a vastly more experienced and skillful opponent, simply relaxing and "going with the flow" has enabled me to do far better than expected.

[Coach Jones]

LOL. I like the visual aid.

Bear, what you're saying makes complete sense. The discussion is more civil than in a lot of threads i've read I think because we're really only talking about the debateable issues.

None of us, so far, have positive proof as to whether or not a "reaction" can be trained. If the startle reflex just happens, and surprise takes us...well...by surprise, then anything that follows is a reaction to that situation.

The big question seems to be whether or not that startle can be affected through training.

You raise a good point, Bear, about Hollyfields response to getting bitten. He's ina totally familiar situation and yet a "surprise" results in a startle reflex. This brings up the question of how many variables of the millions of possibilities out there would you have to train under stressful situations in order to be "ready" for them. Seems like a lot to me.

In the past I often found myself in "questionable" areas. I was aware of my surroundings, but it was the "questionable" quality that made me want to be there. I didn't always make sound decisions...not that I do now, but i'm getting better.

During that time, I was "ambushed" you could say a couple of times. Just a couple and I was incredibly lucky in each case. Lucky that the atackers didn't have a knife or gun, lucky that they weren't skilled enough to cause serious damage with a single shot and lucky that I was able to gather enough of my bearings to get with it soon enough. I was especially thankfull that the atackers didn't have knives or guns because that made me alot less dead after the encounter.

I have no memory of my startle response, i'm sure that I turtled and did all the things that people do. In both cases I remember the initial contact, the realization that I was in trouble, and flipping the switch in my head shifting mentally from being the defender to being the atacker....lucky both times.

I have no idea how much time either situation took. Seemed like it took a long time but probably not. I don't know if there was somehing I could have done to make my response faster but I have no illusion that luck played a huge part.

The question remains, "can we condition the startle reflex?"

If we can, then there is absolutely value to RBSD in terms of that. If we can't, there is still value there as "something to do when you regain your bearings".

Personally, I haven't chosen that path. I tend to lean toward being more prepared than an attacker (hopefully) and hoping my luck holds.

[MonkeysUncle]

Whether reaction-based training is productive or not, I don't really know. I think that's been the general consensus throughout the discussion, but I honestly think that just being aware of your surroundings would be much more useful than going through tons of flinch training. Bob Spour of the SAS talks about this, being "switched on" when you're out in the world. Unfortunately since earth isn't always a safe place, when we're out and about we do need to be aware. If you see a shady looking person, you walk to the other side of the street. Usually, end of scenario. If not, then you hopefully have training, a weapon, lots of friends, or are Ussein Bolt. It just seems much simpler for me to be taking note of what's going on, than worrying about what my flinch response will be. There's also the argument that yes you can be aware, but everybody can be surprised. This is true, but again it seems that if you don't make a habit out of dumpster diving in dark alleyways you won't run to a whole lot of problems. Then again if you are dumpster diving any potential attackers will think you are poor or escaped from a mental institution so they'll probably leave you alone in case you do this: :taz:

New DVD: RMAX-Powered Dumpster Diving!:winner:

[Coach Jones]

Being "switched on" paying attention to your surroundings - absolutely paramount.