emotional component

What I have found is that the difference between an attack in the dojo and an attack on the street is the emotional component. I saw people easily blocking a punch trown at them in a serene trainingsituation but making a quick leap out of the way for the same punch accompanied by swearing, screaming and bad intent.

I also find the emotional harder to deal with than the physical punch. Also if it goes without physical the emotional attack is sometimes hard to deal with. When you have a person who is in an angry emotional state it's hard not become emotional overwhelmed and angry yourself. How do you train for that?

Kind Regards,

Nick Engelen

I think for me its important to remember first of all that martial arts, despite what the marketing says, is really only an enabler - not a solution. Martial arts offers a physical foundation for self-protection, and under the right training it can provide a supplement to the mental attributes required. Whether it assists in the emotional aspect is, in my opinion, purely down to the individual - and there are no guarantees.

I have always tried to stress that conditioning training should work all three levels - physical, mental, emotional. That's got nothing to do with sitting under waterfalls, its simply how you push the person past the physical, beyond the mental, and then you find who they really are. If the person is prepared to face that journey, then I believe you can train them emotionally. If not, then its just like love, you can't force someone into it. (legally)

Examples of training I have seen would be Erik Paulson's 30 Minute Round, whereby you have to fight Erik, all out, for 30 mins non stop. People do one of two things - they quit (mostly) or they break down and cry, but see it through. Erik says that everyone who makes it to the end has cried. Those people have had their training pushed right into full emotional conditioning.

So, to try and answer your question, if you want to train as best you can for the emotional then that's the kind of level you have to go to. I remember the first time I sparred 10 round with Spencer Oliver, I cried pretty much all the way home. I honestly can't tell you why, but what I can tell you is that when I woke up the next day, I felt like I could do anything.

Eloquently put mike x

Sparring Erik Paulson's for 30 Minute Rounds, does not elicit the same emotion as a violent real life attack. it may produce some similar psychological responses,

The crying experienced afterwards is a simple act of homeostasis, the sparring does produce a significant emotional response, infact studies show that in extreme situations we often turn to emotion as a motivator to continue. This motivating emotion has to be dissipated, the most frequently used method of dissipating the internal tension of emotion is via crying, some people may respond by laughing uncontrollably.

my point isn't to say that a hard 30 min round, doesn't elicit an emotion and an emotional response, it obviously does, as does a hard run and any form of intense exercise. The fight or flight (FoF) response is most commonly triggered by "E" events (Emergency, Exercise, Embarrassment, Excitement), the physiological response is virtually the same for all these situations. It's usually the intensity that varies and that is determined by the perceived (consciously and subconsciously) of the threat.

Even though the physiological response is basically the same, the emotion differs. It is this emotion that effects what we do with the FoF, an unfamiliar emotion should elicit a flight response but more often it produces the freeze response. there are a few reasons behind the freeze but basically this is where our superior cognitive prowess gets in our way, instead of doing what is natural we try to analyze it, when we can't come up with a suitable explanation we end up stuck in a feedback loop (or search loop).

Intense physical training does provide an experience of the FoF sensation, and thus does help (greatly) when this response is felt in real world violence, but it does not deal with the actual emotion involved. This is why you have to provide experience of the type of emotion that will be felt during an assault, even if it is at a lower level then for real. realistic scenario work is a great method but it must include BEP (Behavioural, Emotional, Psychological) aspects of real world violence. it is impossible to provide the same experience as a real world attack, ( the simple prior knowledge of safety prevents it), but we can approach it and this is enough for a person to generalise it to a higher intensity (extrapolate if you like)

The other thing I want to comment on , and I'm sorry Mike if it seems that i am trying to tear you post apart, is that most people who need self defence wouldn't be able to do a 30 min round, even shadow sparring, and they don't need to. (This is not the same as saying physical exercise is not a beneficial to self protection). but lets be honest a person who can last 30 minutes sparring probably has a physical appearance that would limited their chances of being selected as a victim in the first place. ( this is good obviously and very much supports the avoidance aspect of RBSD ), but those who would be at higher risk of selection, need to be able to defend themselves NOW, not when they can perform at that level. it is good to work up to that level of fitness /ability but we have to provide something in the interim, realistic scenario training is one of the best methods (there are others) I have come across for this purpose. Start at a lower intensity and then build up ( it is pointless reinforcing the negative response ) start at a level where they can obtain a positive outcome and increase the intensity accordingly so it challenges the student, with out reinforcing a negative response. most people can progress through these differing levels quite rapidly.

any way I've waffled enough, please not that my primary concern is for the people who need RBSD the most not those who have already passed that initial level.

Tear away, I enjoy challenging views, that's what debate is for.

The limitation of the medium of an internet forum is that you are often asked to answer hugely open questions, which could involve writing a novel. In order to be concise, a lot of the time you have to pick an example to illustrate a point. I think you've picked up on one example that I gave and ran with it, so let me try to clarify. I opened my post by saying that I don't believe martial arts training can offer a solution to the emotion of a "real" attack, I feel it can only provide enablers. So I agree with you, it cannot replicate the emotion inherent in a violent assault, nor did I say it does. I stand by my view however than physical and mental exertion can be one example of how you can condition or strengthen your emotional resolve. I'm sure anyone who has been in the military will know exactly how prevalent this concept is in their training.

In my experience, pushing the physical and mental barriers of training into the realms of emotional provides you with a mindset and strength of will that will stand you in very good stead if ever attacked. Its similar to a ring fight, you can't train someone in how its going to feel when you step through those ropes for the first time, but through your training you can take them to a place that offers them the most confidence possible to face the situation. Yes, the example I gave was an athletic one, but to be honest as you rightly say that is most of the battle won. As I always say to people who come to me wanting to learn how to defend themselves - be in shape, spar with the best, and don't be a dick - people will tend to leave you alone.

However you are right, that approach is not realistic for everyone. Where as I do believe most people who aren't athletic are the way they are because of their own lifestyle choices, regardless of how many excuses they throw at you, other people just do not have the attributes to train in an athletic way. My mum for example is 60 years old (sorry mum) and as a nurse has worked for over 30 years in Casualty units where she has seen a great deal of violence. When I worked with her I obviously didn't spar a 30 minute round, we worked on training scenarios that were specific to her needs, and tried to emulate the emotional component through means other than physical exertion.

I guess a final comment I would make is that I don't divorce RBSD from establishing an athletic base. I see too much "reality" training where people just stand around putting on little plays and scenarios in street clothes shouting and swearing at each other and playing with pretend weapons. Even when complete beginners come to me wanting to learn how to defend themselves, one of my main goals is to put them on a program that will develop their athletic base. Regardless of how clever you are with your scenario training, the simple fact is that every violent encounter will come down to who has the great mix of physical, mental and emotional attributes. In my experince too many people in RBSD stand around pontificating on the last two, when perhaps of more focus was given to the first one - they wouldn't get there in the first place.

MW

Nice posts Mike

Very well put

Craig

Michael W Wright wrote:Tear away, I enjoy challenging views, that's what debate is for.

The limitation of the medium of an internet forum is that you are often asked to answer hugely open questions, which could involve writing a novel. In order to be concise, a lot of the time you have to pick an example to illustrate a point. I think you've picked up on one example that I gave and ran with it,

Dude you only gave the one example, that is, emotional training via intense physical conditioning. I don't disagree, I've even provided a psychological explanation for its effectiveness. so no arguments there.

The point of my post was that this form of emotional preparation is not relevant or available for MOST people who NEED RBSD training.

so let me try to clarify. I opened my post by saying that I don't believe martial arts training can offer a solution to the emotion of a "real" attack, I feel it can only provide enablers. So I agree with you, it cannot replicate the emotion inherent in a violent assault, nor did I say it does. I stand by my view however than physical and mental exertion can be one example of how you can condition or strengthen your emotional resolve.

again I don't disagree, I just don't believe it is that relevant compared to other methods.

I'm sure anyone who has been in the military will know exactly how prevalent this concept is in their training.

Military training is not civilian training, RBSD is not preparing someone for war or to take a life. The effectiveness of military training is due to its close replication to the conditions soldiers may face. the intense physical training is primarily used to provide quick fitness and build resolve, in some cases it is a tool to break the spirit to enable the production of a relatively homogenous soldier that will take orders and do what they are told.

The emotional preparation of military training has less to do with physical exertion then it does to providing a realistic emotional eliciting stimulus. again I draw your attention to the fact that the majority of individuals who choose a military career (especially as grunts) generally display the traits that put them at a lower risk of selection.

Military training is not self defence it is fighting and killing (tho not the way that comes across), it is reality based for the role of a soldier not the role of a citizen.

Difference between Fight training and self defence training:
Fight training encourages you to win/defeat/destroy.
RBSD encourages you to escape/survive.

(i didn't mean to carry on about military training as much, But I have a hate of the misinformed believe perpetuated by some that RBSD training is military, the only reason to wear camos during RBSD training is if you regularly wear them outside of the class. anyway I could bitch for ages about this but it's really just a pet hate of mine, don't get me started on cardio kickboxing, or other aerobics classes using MA moves claiming to be self defence, at least military training is still directed at not getting yourself killed))

In my experience, pushing the physical and mental barriers of training into the realms of emotional provides you with a mindset and strength of will that will stand you in very good stead if ever attacked.

yes it does, any thing that provides a familiarisation with the physiological response of emotions can to that, you could also gain a similar effect by watching prolonged and intense violence on film, you can obtain the same from overcoming a phobia (such as a fear of spiders etc). You can take up public speaking or karaoke. All of these provide a familiarisation and desensitization to the emotional response, BUT only those that use a similar eliciting stimulus will properly prepare you to handle the realities of the BEP components of RWV.

Its similar to a ring fight, you can't train someone in how its going to feel when you step through those ropes for the first time, but through your training you can take them to a place that offers them the most confidence possible to face the situation.

Yes but the methods you use to get them that confidence is directly related to performing in the ring. ( which requires a high fitness and conditioning base compared to the average street encounter )

Yes, the example I gave was an athletic one, but to be honest as you rightly say that is most of the battle won. As I always say to people who come to me wanting to learn how to defend themselves - be in shape, spar with the best, and don't be a dick - people will tend to leave you alone.

your right, but the vast majority of the world are not like that, what do they do , and what do they do in the mean time while they get into shape, they are at greatest risk at the beginning of the training. what about those who can't train with intensity there are a lot of those out there, not just injured/disabled people, but those who circumstance prevent them from attaining that level through either lack of time or lack of means.

My view is that RBSD is for EVERYONE not just the physically fit, but everyone. the numbers that aren't fit or are unable to be fit far outweigh those that can.

However you are right, that approach is not realistic for everyone. Where as I do believe most people who aren't athletic are the way they are because of their own lifestyle choices, regardless of how many excuses they throw at you, other people just do not have the attributes to train in an athletic way. My mum for example is 60 years old (sorry mum) and as a nurse has worked for over 30 years in Casualty units where she has seen a great deal of violence. When I worked with her I obviously didn't spar a 30 minute round, we worked on training scenarios that were specific to her needs, and tried to emulate the emotional component through means other than physical exertion.

if you want want high intensity Reality based training just mention your mums age on an internation forum LOL:D

This kind of backs my point, the training you gave you mum is directed to her needs, and does not require physical exertion, she would be the more common student then the fighter type (maybe not in terms of who trains RBSD, but who needs it).

I guess a final comment I would make is that I don't divorce RBSD from establishing an athletic base. I see too much "reality" training where people just stand around putting on little plays and scenarios in street clothes shouting and swearing at each other and playing with pretend weapons.

These little plays and scenarios are one of the best ways to prepare any person for real world violence. I don't divorce RBSD from establishing an athletic base, lets face it survival of the fittest still holds, however it is more likely that the fittest are at lower risk of attack then the unfit. Yes I agree with you gaining this fitness is an excellent way to prevent being chosen in the first place, but it takes time to established, what does the student do in the mean time. At least the plays allow the student to familiarise themselves with the Behavioural, Emotional and Psychological (BEP) aspect of violence.

Even when complete beginners come to me wanting to learn how to defend themselves, one of my main goals is to put them on a program that will develop their athletic base.

Nothing wrong with that, we simply have a different approach on this. I am not a fitness trainer, people come to me to learn how to defend themselves, not to be able to run 3ks or do 100 push ups, or even to last 33 rounds in the ring. I encourage my students to pursue a fitness regime, and they do get a work out from the nature of the training, but I do not waste their time with fitness exercises, this i leave for the person to attend to in his/her own time. i concentrate the time they have with me in developing SD Skills and applying them resisting, noncompliant partners.

Regardless of how clever you are with your scenario training, the simple fact is that every violent encounter will come down to who has the great mix of physical, mental and emotional attributes.

Here I disagree, it is through my experience and from my studies that I have found that the biggest influence on the outcome of a violent attack is the BEP components, those who control these control the physical. The fact is you DO NOT NEED physical fitness to defend and escape a violent attacker, your body has a specific reserve of energy it keeps for emergency situations, this is enough for you to fend off and escape an attacker. also when taking a holistic view of the violence you will recognise that the physical component is actually the smallest part of the three.

Sure physical fitness is beneficial, and it can help greatly in the prevention and even during the physical attack but it is not needed. In fact you are more likely to be attacked when your physical fitness is lacking such as though Illness or injury, having too much reliance on your fitness in this case can be detrimental to your performance.

In my experince too many people in RBSD stand around pontificating on the last two, when perhaps of more focus was given to the first one - they wouldn't get there in the first place.

maybe your right but again what do you do in the mean time between beginning and attaining that level of physical fitness, what if you can't attain it for some reason.
---------

Mate if you where taking about fighting (as opposed to self defence/protection) then I wouldn't disagree a bit, but as we all know fighting and self defence, although related, are two different beasts. and are often performed by very different types.

Mind you over all I think you'd find we are on the same page, just a different view of the same bowl of fruit.

To be honest, reading your post, I don't believe we are on the same page at all. We clearly have very different realities.

But that's good, contrasting views offer a stronger range of choice to anyone looking to gain insight from the topic. Therefore I think our discussion has been very worthwhile.

Michael W Wright wrote:To be honest, reading your post, I don't believe we are on the same page at all. We clearly have very different realities.

I don't know I think overall we have the same goal in mind, just a different approach. Obviously we disagree with regards to the physical fitness side of things, and It's not so much that I disagree with you, I actually agree pretty well with everything you said, I just don't put as much emphasis on it. I am looking at it from the untrained beginner student point of view and my system is aimed at being able to defend/escape regardless of fitness level or ability. I don't mean to come across as anti fitness or workout, it is one of the best things you can do both for selection avoidance and physical defence, but for most people that requires time.

my approach assumes low level fitness and ability, weaker, slower smaller etc, i first show the person hoe THEY can defend themselves with what they have NOW. (i.e. I don't show them what I can do, I show them what they can do, I think it was Tony Blauer that I first heard that from). I then move on to showing how they can do it better introducing new techniques and tactically modifying their natural ability where needed. Next we further develop those skills and so on. Fitness is a natural part of the progression but it is not a pre-requisite for self defence. At least not with my system.

But that's good, contrasting views offer a stronger range of choice to anyone looking to gain insight from the topic. Therefore I think our discussion has been very worthwhile.

Exactly right, it is through contrasting, alternate angle views that we learn new things, after all if everyone agreed with everyone else their would be nothing new to learn.

There is definitely a hierarchy when it comes to the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual components to personal protection. Contrary to what many so-called reality teachers/practitioners espouse, the physical component is where the majority of your fighting attributes need to be honed and polished. And guess the news? Yes, size does matter!!! Despite what all the girls may tell you.

Unfortunately, in the beginning of the late 90s into the early millennium when many RBSD systems started to come to the forefront, there was a lot of 20 year old martial artists teaching a deluge of psycho-babble that in truth was a bunch of third hand half truths largely based on sports psychology. What has resulted is a lot of outdated concepts taken as gospel. Instead of taking advice from and gathering research from medical doctors and psychologists who have interviewed countless numbers of policemen and soldiers who have experienced the fog of war, many of these systems have taken their advice from some skin head mixed martial artist with a high school education who has read a couple of NLP books. There are many law enforcement and military people who are currently debunking a lot of these myths such as “startle reflex”, “K.I.S.S.” and “Hick’s Law” and replacing them with more empirically based evidence. With that said, I am a believer in all four components (physical, mental, emotional and spiritual), but have to agree with Michael that there are just too many reality systems where everyone is overweight, participating in screaming match/thugs’ day out scenarios and then during the breaks spend their time sucking on a Camel.

Touching on what I said at the beginning of this post, the emotional training/content is all about dealing and controlling combat stress, fear and anger. When someone pisses us off, most people get stressed. Continued stress leads to anger and fear could weave its’ way into this cycle depending on the person, his background, his self-esteem, his training regime and yes, his fitness levels. Now I know this going to annoy some people, but medical studies are showing that fear and stress are more likely to debilitate people who are not physically fit and overweight in contrast to those who are in shape- interesting! There is also a reprogramming issue that goes along with this where you need to teach your people to realign their perception when someone is suddenly in your face. In other words, if a toe rag is causing you grief, what do you possibly gain from getting mad at this guy? Many will tell you that anger enables aggression, but the truth is that all anger causes is a hissy-fit. The way to evoke aggression is through your training. Getting mad and all worked up by some scum bag is a fruitless task simply because, if he is a scum bag and is being intimidating, violent and scary, well that’s what scum bags are supposed to do! Once you are in acceptance of that, then you can become dispassionate about this guy and simply concentrate on defending yourself. I mean, if you were walking in the park and a pit bull started barking at you and then suddenly chased after you for no reason, would you seriously get mad at the pit bull? I doubt it, largely due to the fact that most people are in acceptance that pit bulls bite!

Another issue here with the emotional component, which is largely based on fear, is that it really never comes up if you are really fighting for your life. But this then enables the spiritual component that partly deals with ego. If your altercation is fueled by your own ego, that in itself enables fear and anger to rage inside of you.

Out

Joe

Joe Hubbard wrote:There is definitely a hierarchy when it comes to the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual components to personal protection. Contrary to what many so-called reality teachers/practitioners espouse, the physical component is where the majority of your fighting attributes need to be honed and polished.

There is a hierarchy indeed but the physical is not at the top, it's important yes, but if you are not prepared for the BEP (Behavioural, Emotional and Psychological) elements of Real World Violence (RWV) then how are you going to utilize the Physical, especially when you are overcome by the BEP.

And guess the news? Yes, size does matter!!! Despite what all the girls may tell you.

Not unless your taking about the ring/mat or the bed dude. in a match fight you're more likely to walk away richer if you bet on the larger/stronger fighter, but as you are well aware, RWV is a different arena and has a entirely different BEP

Unfortunately, in the beginning of the late 90s into the early millennium when many RBSD systems started to come to the forefront, there was a lot of 20 year old martial artists teaching a deluge of psycho-babble that in truth was a bunch of third hand half truths largely based on sports psychology. What has resulted is a lot of outdated concepts taken as gospel. Instead of taking advice from and gathering research from medical doctors and psychologists who have interviewed countless numbers of policemen and soldiers who have experienced the fog of war, many of these systems have taken their advice from some skin head mixed martial artist with a high school education who has read a couple of NLP books. There are many law enforcement and military people who are currently debunking a lot of these myths such as “startle reflex”, “K.I.S.S.” and “Hick’s Law” and replacing them with more empirically based evidence.

Well please don't paint everyone with that brush of yours Joe. My "Psycho babble" is not from sports psychology ( though it has it's place in designing training methods), I have previously studied the BEP of actual violence, including fear, the physiological and psychology of emotion responses, natural defence mechanisms, predator behaviour and motives etc etc via the people who have been there, I have even returned to university to further my knowledge and to complete a Psychology degree One of the reasons for this is to improve my own understanding of RWV BEP, and provide my students with a understanding of an overlooked aspect of self defence.(it's not the only reason)

I've never read an NLP book, nor have I trained in hypnosis and my University has not only revealed more information but has consolidated the stuff I previously studied.

With that said, I am a believer in all four components (physical, mental, emotional and spiritual).......,

Me too, all four aspects are important and none should be neglected (depends how you define spiritual as to how important it is) but I would also include behavioural as an component

........ but have to agree with Michael that there are just too many reality systems where everyone is overweight, participating in screaming match/thugs’ day out scenarios and then during the breaks spend their time sucking on a Camel.

I really hope that you're referring to the cigarette and not the animal

Again these people/places exist but they also exist in traditional dojos and MMA camps and even Military combatives. Please be careful not to paint everyone with that brush dude.

I am overweight (I have always been a bit bigger then average), and I remember a time when you where a little pudgy around the gut too mate. My fitness levels are not what they where 20 years ago, I could provide excuses and actual reasons but it doesn't matter to you I am just fat and thus not a good instructor.


Touching on what I said at the beginning of this post, the emotional training/content is all about dealing and controlling combat stress, fear and anger. When someone pisses us off, most people get stressed. Continued stress leads to anger and fear could weave its’ way into this cycle depending on the person, his background, his self-esteem, his training regime and yes, his fitness levels.

Now I know this going to annoy some people,

.... but medical studies are showing that fear and stress are more likely to debilitate people who are not physically fit and overweight in contrast to those who are in shape- interesting!

And you are assuming that the fitness level is a cause for this when it is only correlated to it...... it is more likely that a person who is overweight leads a sedimentary lifestyle (whether by choice of circumstance). It is reasonable to assume that a person leading such a life style is less often going to experience stimulus that induces a stress response, compared to a fit individual who also experiences it via exercise and exertion. I put it to you that it is not the fact that unfit people are susceptible to higher stress responses, but that they have less familiarity and experience of such responses (especially at the level that a fear response would elicit) thus are overcome by the unusual response, they simply get stuck in a feedback loop.

to allude that it is fitness that makes the difference is to ignore the confounding variables, the fact is a unfit persons (all other things being equal) Automatic nervous system is going to be the same as a fit person. You can not build the CNS, ANS or PNS, and the level of a persons fitness does not effect it's performance, this system is among the first systems built in the embryo and by about 10 weeks it has
become fully developed and functional. ( the flinch response, for eg, has been recorded in a 7 week old embryo

There is also a reprogramming issue that goes along with this where you need to teach your people to realign their perception when someone is suddenly in your face. In other words, if a toe rag is causing you grief, what do you possibly gain from getting mad at this guy? Many will tell you that anger enables aggression, but the truth is that all anger causes is a hissy-fit. The way to evoke aggression is through your training. Getting mad and all worked up by some scum bag is a fruitless task simply because, if he is a scum bag and is being intimidating, violent and scary, well that’s what scum bags are supposed to do! Once you are in acceptance of that, then you can become dispassionate about this guy and simply concentrate on defending yourself. I mean, if you were walking in the park and a pit bull started barking at you and then suddenly chased after you for no reason, would you seriously get mad at the pit bull? I doubt it, largely due to the fact that most people are in acceptance that pit bulls bite!

Can't argue with that, controlled aggression (used to motivate physical fight back) not anger. what you describe is the behavioural aspect of real world violence, it doesn't just happen, their is a behavioural delivery system, the attack on the ego, the attack on your spirit, on your confidence the induction of fear and the adrenaline dump often being mistaken as fear. this all and more has to be handled before you can physically defend, if you don't control it then you are playing into the predators hand.

Another issue here with the emotional component, which is largely based on fear, is that it really never comes up if you are really fighting for your life.

No it comes before hand (and after), and often prevents you from acting or is used by the predator to their advantage. If you are fighting then you are no longer in fear of fighting, fear is anticipatory not current.

But this then enables the spiritual component that partly deals with ego. If your altercation is fueled by your own ego, that in itself enables fear and anger to rage inside of you.

Sounds about right.

Jo I can't help thinking when you are talking about the physical defence and the encounter that you are imagining the typical pup or street fight, ora young male victim.

when ever I talk RBSD I am looking at it from the point of view of those who are true victims, such as young women, the elderly and those who do not display the physical attributes of fitness. These are the people who need RBSD, these are the people who are going to be attacked. this is where I base my system not on the young fit alpha male who is easily ego'd into a pub brawl.

Of course I respect your opinion, I just don't entirely agree with it.

Man…Okay, let start this one off by stating for the record that I am not painting or tarring anyone in particular with my brush so to speak. I am making generalizations here based on my opinion, but nevertheless they are quite common observations amongst many RBSD groups that I have seen. Also, please don’t take the statements about being out of shape personally. How could I have possibly known you were overweight? I don’t know you and as far as I am aware we haven’t met. These are your issues, not mine.

Also, can we please establish some parameters that these posts are not based on “I am right, you are wrong”; your opinions are yours and my opinions are mine. In the end, we may agree to disagree, but let me attempt to clarify my point of view in case my communication was poor earlier. Also, after rereading my post, I hope I haven’t offended anyone in my reference to NLP. I could have used any example, let’s say Pyscho-Cybernectics; it’s not the delivery system I was questioning, just the inexperienced, unqualified, non-medical person giving away the psychological advice and more worrying, people buying into that con.

The way that I look at the four components mentioned in my earlier post, is much like a pyramid (not dissimilar to a food pyramid). On the bottom (which is the foundation) is the physical. No matter how you look at it or market whatever it is that you do, Pee Wee Herman will always get his ass kicked by Hulk Hogan. Now couple that with Hulk being trained and in shape. Yes, there are options. You need to establish thinking in concentric layers of defense, where your awareness and avoidance are at your outer most layers. But what has to be complete within your layers of defense is detection, delay, defend and defeat. This is the most basic principle taken from military physical security. When I refer here to physical security, I am relating to the protection of buildings and assets, which of course includes people.

Once you are at the point of contact in any altercation, the physical plays a big part. It is here where all of your tools, targets and tactics are categorized. It is also where all of the physical attributes are in relation to make any of your tools and tactics actually work when you have to defend yourself. Sensitivity, Body Mechanics, Strength, Explosiveness, Coordination, Balance, Ambidexterity, Power, Timing, Speed, Flow, Stamina, Conditioning, Accuracy, Pain Management, Rhythm and Agility are all physical attributes that help people to make their tactics actually work in a fight. When I teach people I tell them that just about anything I show them will work on someone their own size or maybe within a 5-10% disparity of size by your opponent. Anything higher, in other words, if your opponent is 25% bigger, stronger, younger, faster, etc, you will then need to be 25% better with your body mechanics, explosiveness, power, etc than your adversary. This keeps things honest, realistic and non-hypercritical with your students.

The next point of the pyramid is the mental component. This is where all the behavioral aspects are which house strategy, combative mindset, controlled aggression, attitude, will to survive and psychological warfare. This is vitally important and an often left out component from many traditional martial art systems whose mission is primarily health, fitness, fun, respect and self esteem. The mental element allows us to study violence and understand our own violence within and come to full circle terms with that. The problem lies with some systems that concentrate on this as a complete foundation. Hence, my reference to Thugs Day Out events. It’s great to establish a street strategy, but if you are left with no tactics at the point of contact, you are stuffed. The way that I describe strategy and tactics is that your strategy is doing the right thing, where your tactics is doing things right. In other words, you may hit the guy with a pre-emptive strike- good strategy, but then finish with a flying triangle choke- bad tactics. In the end, your tactics have to work seamlessly with your overall strategy. A problem that militaries of the world have had issues with for centuries.

The third rung of the pyramid is the emotional component. No group hugs here, please! For me this is exclusively dealing with combat stress, fear and anger. I pretty much encapsulated this topic on the last post. Many reality systems get stuck in this fear trap. If I am honest, when I first got into this subject matter, I did the same thing. The trick in teaching this is simplifying these emotions and making the connection with each individual to overcome certain obstacles at this level. Yes, I agree that fear emanates from the pre-contact phase of the altercation, but many systems pontificate about this state way too much, use it to fear monger their students and confuse their people by the overuse of psychological jargon. I really prefer for my guys and gals to have a solid foundation before delving too far into the woods with this phase, too early in their development.

The tip of the pyramid is the spiritual component. Please understand that I am not trying to espouse any religious beliefs here; this level purely focuses on understanding one’s ego, establishing a sound belief system and to discover themselves and their hidden potential. This is advanced and only comes to those who seek to understand it and usually comes more naturally to people with experience in life and a solid physical foundation.

This is the way that I look at this and organize this material. I am not suggesting that everyone follows this path. Hope this helps in some way to someone.

Out

Joe

Joe Hubbard wrote:Once you are at the point of contact in any altercation, the physical plays a big part. It is here where all of your tools, targets and tactics are categorized. It is also where all of the physical attributes are in relation to make any of your tools and tactics actually work when you have to defend yourself. Sensitivity, Body Mechanics, Strength, Explosiveness, Coordination, Balance, Ambidexterity, Power, Timing, Speed, Flow, Stamina, Conditioning, Accuracy, Pain Management, Rhythm and Agility are all physical attributes that help people to make their tactics actually work in a fight. When I teach people I tell them that just about anything I show them will work on someone their own size or maybe within a 5-10% disparity of size by your opponent. Anything higher, in other words, if your opponent is 25% bigger, stronger, younger, faster, etc, you will then need to be 25% better with your body mechanics, explosiveness, power, etc than your adversary. This keeps things honest, realistic and non-hypercritical with your students.

Absolutely bang on.

When I hear instructors in "Reality" Based Self Defence start to remove emphasis on the physical, it starts to raise alarm bells with me about their true understanding of reality, and to be frank it is usually a reflection of their own physical ability (that isn't aimed at anyone on here).

Of course awareness, avoidance, the talk, the psychological and emotional are very very important. I would never argue with that, I teach it, and I value it very much. But if you are exposed to confrontaion on a regular basis, the bottom line is that sooner or later its going to get physical, ugly and violent no matter how hard you try. If, when preparing your students for that eventuality you are devaluing the need for solid physical conditioning, then I believe you are misleading people.

You can teach them all the clever eye pokes, knee kicks, biting and gouging and all the other "deadly" stuff I see people hide behind. You know what, other people can do that too, its not really a big revelation to poke someone in the eye or kick them in the nads. The bottom line is if I am stronger, faster, fitter, more conditioned and more aggressive - I'm still going to bury your head into the pavement. That, I'm afraid, is reality.

"I'm still going to bury your head into the pavement. That, I'm afraid, is reality."

how true!
great thread guys...very thought provoking points put all round
mick x

Please don't assume just because I rate the BEP elements higher then the actual physical elements that I under rate the physical. If that was the case I wouldn't have focus mitts and strike shields, etc. I understand that your beef is with those schools that neglect the physical (skill) development, My concern was that the image that those who put a significant emphasis on BEP management is being painted as being amongst this group.

The key words I see here is

"Once you are at the point of contact in any altercation"

,
of course once you reach the physical stage of a confrontation (if you reach it) then the importance of physical responses jumps in importance/priority. the thing is the physical aspect of any attack has about 5 steps prior to it, all of these steps are BEP related. ( this is true for the typical Pub fight when a victim is chosen, though I am not talking fighting I am talking self defence).

By showing a person how to recognize, manage and neutralize the BEP you greatly enhance the chance of physical contact avoidance, if unavoidable BEP can (and should be) managed in a manner to place you in the best possible position to most effectively fight back (both time and space, and BEP), or at least place your self in a better position then possible without it.

See where you guys see a neglect of physical training and an over emphasis on psychological, I too often see the opposite, sometimes to the extend that BEP is neglected and barely given lip service and physical fighting ability is the only concern. This to me (and fair enough it is my opinion) is not RBSD training it is combative training or fight training. it seems to be a marketing choice aimed at the alpha type males, not a self protection solution offered to those more likely at risk.

One reason I went to uni was that I saw a deficit in our industry of BEP applications. just because I do not see a NEED for fitness in actual Self Defence, does not mean I neglect the physical skill training. in reality fitness is not needed for an actual (not match fight) self defence situation. This is based on the average amount of time taken to execute an escape in RWV and also based on Physiological stores of energy specifically reserved for emergency response, you see you can just have ran a 10 km run for the first time and be absolutely rooted, but the the store of emergency response energy is always there, if you are attacked on the finish line then this store will kick in and provide energy for you to act. ( the 10 km run isn't the best e.g. as it is possible to access the stores under extreme exertion, replace that with a debilitating flu)

This is scientifically proven and is proof that physical fitness is not NEEDED for self protection. Please note I am not saying it is not very helpful to the contrary I have already stated it is one of the best things you can develop. This I don't argue.

This is from my website, and is the mission statement of my system.
"Our objective is to provide you with the best possible chance of surviving ALL aspects of a violent, real life, confrontation."

As you can see I take a very holistic approach, I believe in developing ALL aspects of violence management, not just the physical and not just the psychological. yes I put a lot of emphasis on the Behavioural, Emotional and Psychological elements of violence. This is why

When researching and developing my system (a continual thing as I imagine it is for you guys too), my concern was how does a weaker, smaller, less able "victim" defend themselves against a larger, stronger, better attacker. if we look at just the physical "fight" then there is little point putting money on our "victim", in the ring physical attributes and ability are often very good predictors of outcome. in a match fight a 20 year old, 100 kg, male is most likely going to kick the butt of a 12 year old 55Kg female.

This seems pretty logical right, so what is it that allows/enables the thousands of cases where the smaller, weaker victim has fought off the bigger stronger attacker. Just recently in QLD two separate instances one a 12 year old girl the other an 11 year old boy, fought of an abduction attempt, the stats of the victims and attackers were similar to the above e.g ( accept the reported age of the abductor was around 30 I think), what was it that enabled them to fight back and escape that isn't available to them in the ring.

In every case I look at the answer was found in the BEP. the non-victims used or manipulated the Behavioural, Emotional or Psychological aspect to earn freedom (escape). In quite a few cases of elderly attacks where the victim successfully fought back, it was due to the eliciting of an emotional motivator. One e.g., a elderly woman disturbed an intruder in her home , he demanded money which she gave him he demanded jewelry which she gave him, keeping a a small bangle which her grand daughter had given her. when the intruder demanded it she said " no that was given to me by my grand daughter you can't have it", when he tried to take it from her she lashed out as if defending her granddaughter herself, the intruder basically shat himself and bolted, with about $150 worth of jewelry, a few dollars and a new set of scratches to his face. (true story from about a year ago in Brisbane QLD)

There are literally 1000'S of other examples, it sure wasn't their physical conditioning or there perfect technique that save them. in fact the majority of tactics and tools used are the gross motor skills we developed with in us before pre-school, it was not passing the guard of executing a cutting elbow, a hook punch or front kick. The deciding factor lied within the BEP of the encounter.

any way we may have different views but it's all the same bowl of fruit.

Medical research has clearly shown the many benefits of exercise and how it relates to reducing stress, from improving your heart rate, circulation, a better immune system and increased focus while under stress. If this was not true, then doctors would not give this advice and most gyms would be out of business.

Biathlon Athletes have already debunked (along with many psychologists who have finished their doctorate) the myth that increased heart rates result in only using gross motor movements. However, there is plenty of proof that people who are out of shape will be reduced to gross motor movements due to loss of wind, lactic acid build up and unfamiliarity of range. The answer lies in your training- end of!

It has also been proven that the startle reflex surprise does not last forever. Many espouse this as a flinch response catch-all pantheon. But what happens if the startle and surprise does not remain? You must have a Plan B if Plan A doesn’t work; this is what adaptation is all about- this is why we train! I have seen people teach the preemptive strike concept whereby they swear a knockout will ensue. It is reflective of systems that have their students always seeing the world through the eyes of the Ambushee rather than the Ambusher and likewise disregard the “fight in progress” part. You must address all three of these roles and understand each one. I agree with you that there are many martial systems that completely disregard the pre-contact (early phase) opportunities, verbal dissuasion and the psychology that goes with that. But saying that, I also disagree with a lot you are saying. Many generic medical practitioners fail to see the bigger picture application germane to Combat Medicine and the existing and evolving research that repeatedly relates to crime and war.

Drew, the way that I relate to the way you are teaching your group is more of an anti-crime threat assessment course than a self protection course. I recently did some training with Tim Tackett and he said something interesting, “Most reality systems always take for granted that the person in front of them can’t fight.” Now, while I agree that the majority of people are not Bruce Lee on acid, I do feel that fortune favors the prepared. Please remember:


The person in front of you will only be startled for so long and sometimes due to the circumstances, they may not be startled at all. What happens next?

Out

Joe

Joe Hubbard wrote:Medical research has clearly shown the many benefits of exercise and how it relates to reducing stress, from improving your heart rate, circulation, a better immune system and increased focus while under stress. If this was not true, then doctors would not give this advice and most gyms would be out of business.

Dude I never said it wasn't beneficial to stress, but your e.g. before was to do with the fact that unfit persons are more likely to be overcome by an acute (emergency) stress response, and you gave a study as proof, I pointed out that the study only showed a correlation not a causal effect and then I provided a very plausible alternative explanation (known as a confounding variable) as to why this correlation occurred.

An acute stress response and medical stress are two different things, comparing the two is apple and oranges ( actually more oranges and mandarins, or lemons and limes). Would a perfectly conditioned person be able to handle a acute stress response better then a out of condition person? Well of course they would on physiological level. thats kind of asking if a well maintained in-tune motor will handle more stress then an out of tune misused one. Of course they will physically handle stress better.

Does the condition of the person effect the role of the acute stress response? No because it plays the same role in every person, the level of fitness has nothing to do with how a person reacts to an acute stress response, nor does it change or impede the response. indeed as I said before it is more likely the familiarisation and perceived level of threat that will effect what the person does. The physiological response is the same, the intensity can very due to perceived danger, but the action taken by the person is a psychologically determined not physically.

The fact that a physically conditioned person has a different psychological outlook and experience compared to the unconditioned, may just make a difference, after all fit people tend to be more confident and willing to accept challenge, they are somewhat accustomed to stress due to physical exercise, but these are all psychological determinants, if you installed these qualities in to an unconditioned person you will find similar response actions.

Biathlon Athletes have already debunked (along with many psychologists who have finished their doctorate) the myth that increased heart rates result in only using gross motor movements.

Well if the heart-rate in induced by expected and familiar exercise then I tend to agree with you, it is not just an increase in heart rate but the conditions and stimulus that induces it. Heart rate increase is only a portion of the physiological response associated with acute stress. I doubt very much that the biathletes in the study were exposed to a fear inducing stimulus in order to raise the heart rate, my bet is they were participating in some form of exercise to which they are very familiar with (even if it was a new exercise). I would be very interested in the results of a experiment that took the same biathletes and induced the high heart rate with a fearful stimulus.

Heres a related example which shows the effect of familiarity on the acute stress response, high rise construction workers are able to walk along beens maybe a foot wide 10's of stories above the ground, these guys still showed a stress response, but it's intensity was far below that of an experienced person in the same condition. it does not matter whether these guys were physically fit or not, the perceived danger was reduced because of familiarity, thus it was not physical fitness or conditioning but psychological conditioning that enabled the lesser response.

even though I am debating this with Joe , If you could could you direct me toward the studies you mention, I would actually like to see contrary findings.

However, there is plenty of proof that people who are out of shape will be reduced to gross motor movements due to loss of wind, lactic acid build up and unfamiliarity of range. The answer lies in your training- end of!

Well there is a difference between gross motor reliance due to fatigue then due to an acute stress response, even so isn't that just further proof of the importance of gross motor skills, it kind of goes to show that they are the only movements you can confidently rely on, the majority of the western world is overweight and unfit, and these are the people who are at risk of victim selection, nothing wrong with getting them into shape (it's a bloody good idea) however what are they to use in the mean time, when they are conditioned doesn't it make common sense to provide them with skills that will still be effective during an intense fear response, or when they are physically exhausted.

It has also been proven that the startle reflex surprise does not last forever.

who said it did??

Many espouse this as a flinch response catch-all pantheon. But what happens if the startle and surprise does not remain? You must have a Plan B if Plan A doesn’t work; this is what adaptation is all about- this is why we train!

Can't argue with that, sounds like good advice to me dude.
The startle flinch is reliable but you're right it is quick, and if you can not capitalise on it then you need a back up. Nothing is ever guaranteed.

I have seen people teach the preemptive strike concept whereby they swear a knockout will ensue.

I've seen this too and I don't buy into it either, the chance of a Ko can be quite high, but as you may remember I base my system on the weaker victim, stronger attacker(s) mix, so I'm happy to say I don't rely on the KO. lets be honest it's possible but not likely that a 12 yo girl is going to be able to KO a 25 yo 100 kg male, ( Mind you there are other things, available to her )

It is reflective of systems that have their students always seeing the world through the eyes of the Ambushee rather than the Ambusher and likewise disregard the “fight in progress” part. You must address all three of these roles and understand each one.

I agree with that, and to be honest maybe I do focus a little to narrowly on the weakest v's strongest type situation, my view is that if it works for this condition it should work easier for a more even position. I do try to empower my students with knowledge of Predatory behavior, tactics and BEPs for both the victim and the attacker

what do you mean by "Fight in Progress", I assume your talking fight dynamics etc but if you could clarify I'd appreciate it

I agree with you that there are many martial systems that completely disregard the pre-contact (early phase) opportunities, verbal dissuasion and the psychology that goes with that. But saying that, I also disagree with a lot you are saying.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, Joe. it gives me an opportunity to test my ideas if I find they still ring true to me then good if not then it tells me where else I should look

Many generic medical practitioners fail to see the bigger picture application germane to Combat Medicine and the existing and evolving research that repeatedly relates to crime and war.

Which is another reason I choose the study the psychology (BEP) of real world violence.

Drew, the way that I relate to the way you are teaching your group is more of an anti-crime threat assessment course than a self protection course.

My system is very much based on civilian self defence, I do not teach soldiers, nor to I train fighters. It is purely civilian RBSD, that is, self defence based on the realities of civilians. The number one goal is to escape and thus survive. Don't get me wrong, I do teach my students how to systematically disassemble a human being. I have real world experience and have faced a variety of "Dance" partners some typical some not so typical and some down right bloody scary. I do not kid my students about what is out there and I prepare them the best I can to avoid, de-escalate, and if need be finish an attacker ...... BUT my number one focus is to escape and survive. I am also not naive as to what that may require nor am I neglectful of the affect such action can have on a person. Not only do I deal with worst case scenarios, but I also provide less force options as well, though initially I concentrate on escape and survival.

I recently did some training with Tim Tackett and he said something interesting, “Most reality systems always take for granted that the person in front of them can’t fight.” Now, while I agree that the majority of people are not Bruce Lee on acid, I do feel that fortune favors the prepared. Please remember:

The person in front of you will only be startled for so long and sometimes due to the circumstances, they may not be startled at all. What happens next?

just to anser your question....... it depends

Dr. Bill Lewinski, PHD, of the Force Science Research Center and multi decade behavioral psychologist specializing in body reaction and violence says:

“The idea that a high heart rate causes a loss of fine motor skills is a myth. It’s true that if you reach a very high heart rate through physical exertion, you may experience some MINOR issues with fine psychomotor skills. We much more noticeably lose psychomotor skills under fear or anger, primarily because of our inability to focus attention properly when distressed. The key is training. With a proper training program that allows you to repeatedly practice your skills while under a high degree of stress, you will build your confidence and reduce the impact of negative emotions so that you can maintain your fine-motor dexterity when faced with real-life challenges. In other words, good training can help you build a history of successful performance under high stress.”

Dr. Kenneth Cooper of the Aerobics Center in Dallas, Texas explains that everyone’s target heart rate is different depending on their own conditioning. The lower the resting heart rate is, due to individual conditioning, the lower the heart spike becomes when one is frightened by the angry bear. Most people who are out of shape will have a considerably higher resting heart rate than people who have a reasonable level of fitness, thus resulting in a lower heart spike regardless of the effects of ANS. The SNS, being associated with the stress response- “fight or flight” response- is all about the ambush; the greatest militaries in the world have been defeated by an ambush. Hence, my earlier reference to understanding, not only the role of the ambushee, but also the ambusher and the “fight in progress” part. To say that everyone has the same exact response to fright/stress through ANS is the same as the so-called experts using some controlled experiment to deduce that every time someone is faced with battle, they will sh+t their pants. This is of vital importance when teaching new people. Using the mental component of Hunter/Prey Reversal, when faced with danger, I teach my guys how to turn the tables on their attacker and understand the role of the attacker, not the victim. Of course, I do emphasize the importance of defusing the confrontation, but contrary to many conflict management doctrines, I also (through direct experience) teach people to recognize the deception which is a hallmark of a criminal and/or mentally disturbed individual as early as possible to enhance their survivability. The “fight in progress” part is being able to react, accept and overcome the inevitability that the fight is on; sadly many think it is all about the verbal dissuasion and pay the price when their tactics fail on impact.

Drew, please let me state how much I respect you for pursuing education and going to University to study this field. Many instructors, as I stated earlier, read a few books and suddenly are experts. I also want to point out that, I too, feel all this stuff is neglected, but just don’t have it at the forefront of what I teach people. My Survival Pyramid that I explained earlier clearly points out how I develop the foundation through the physical window, then move up to the mental, the emotional and then the spiritual. I also need to clarify that I do not espouse trading blows with people. I have a clear defined strategy and tactics that is based on deception and thinking like the enemy to achieve the end result of survival when faced with sudden violence. Balance is the key with everything my friend- balance.

Out

Joe

Thanks for that Joe, I appreciate you going to the effort to post that, mate.

In the end we are trying to do the same thing, different approaches.

I do not wish to imply your pyramid is wrong, far from it I've been around long enough to see that it is indeed a good approach.

My pyramid, not That I think of it exactly like that, has a different base. all in all I think we use the same bricks (or at least similar bricks) we just put them in different locations with in the pyramid. Like you, I try not to neglect any aspect of violence whether soft skills or hard, I guess I prioritise them differently.

Thankyou for the discussion Joe, I appreciate it.

My pleasure bro!

Out

Joe

Joe Hubbard wrote: many of these systems have taken their advice from some skin head mixed martial artist with a high school education who has read a couple of NLP books.

so... any suggestions on how to train this "emotional component"?
how are people drilling this?

EPIC THREAD!! This is one hell of a good read. By far the best thread on this forum yet. So much information, it's taken me the over half an hour to read through it all. If anything, it's making me want to go and push myself to break the boundaries and keep going. Keep it coming guys. Apologies I can't be of any useful input but i'm learning from it all. Thanks.