Did Modern Day RBSD Borrow its Concepts From "Point" Shooting?

[JackHanma]

I found this part of the article to the problem with the whole RBSD system.

The Theories of Peyton Quinn

Quinn also favors asymmetric training which is different from Boxing which is symmetric training during which both "combatants are trying to win"RMCAT instead uses asymmetric training. "We are not training people to spar. We are training people to enter people to enter and strike down the enemy."

1. How many Boxing matches has Quinn been in to claim that the combatants just "sparring"?

2.The whole point of full contact sparring is to "enter and strike the enemy down." Does he not know that the point of Boxing is to K.O. the opponent?

3.If both combatants aren't trying to win i.e. achieve a goal when it is not combat by definition. Ever attacker in any violent situation attacks with an end in mind usually to cause an injury. Your goal as the fighter is to terminate his attacks thus stopping the potential for injury to yourself or your loved ones. If the training is not done with every participant trying to achieve a specific goal i.e. trying to "win" then the activity is not combat and is merely choreography or fantasy role-playing. It is no more value to real combat than playing D&D is to swording fighting. You cannot prepare for violent attack intended to cause physical harm unless you are willing to subject yourself to a situation where the opponent is fully dedicated to cause you harm...i.e. full contact continuous sparring.

The Theories of Peyton Quinn
(p. 81) "If the fighter begins to enter into flailing behavior or otherwise gets into a position where the bulletman's attack is prevailing, then the scenario is stopped and the fighter is given another scenario to correct his mistake. This is important because the adrenal conditioning is strong and we must avoid conditioning mistakes into fighters. We are not training them to lose; we are training them to win." (pp. 80-81) Quinn contends that most people have the most trouble making decisions about what to do and when to "go off" under the stress of the verbal abuse that immediately preceeds most attacks, and that asymmetric training is the most effective way to overcome this "fundamental problem". (pp. 81-82)

1. In other words Quinn is not preparing his students for the realities of being in "bad positions" which are likely to occur an fight thus denying them the chance to learn how to fight out of those situations..
2. How is teaching your students to keep on fighting "conditioning mistakes" into fighters?
3. Does Quinn think Combat Athletes by sparring are training "mistakes into fighters." Doesn't this contradict what he said about symmetrical training being about winning?
4. If Quin wants to teach his students to win why doesn't allow to compete in sparring where they can win. Isn't actually winning a way to learning how to win?


The problem with RBSD is that it lacks an objective standard with which to measure proformance. If outcomes are predetermined and not done with the opponent attacking with real intent then the training method has about the same value in determining performance under real combat where intent certainly a driving force than Jet Li's movies measure Mr. Li's ability to fight multiple professional fighters such as Tito Ortiz.

[Sam Browning]

Interestingly Quinn says that he formally took boxing lessons though he does not say how many formal boxing matches he has fought. In his book "A Bouncer's Guide to Barroom Brawling" (Paladin Press, Boulder, Co, 1990), p. 243. He calls Boxing a "core discipline" writing:

"When I started taking boxing lessons, I was already a seven year student of both Karate and Judo. Some of the guys in the gym knew about this and decided this was cause to beat the hell out of me with a little extra furor, which may color my view of boxing training to some degree. In fact, boxing showed me that just because I was practiced in an Asian system, I couldn't necessarily drop the boxer even if I was allowed to use all my moves.

Full-contact training like this teaches you two important things that are much more difficult to perfect in Asian martial arts schools. The first is getting used to being hit hard in the head and not letting it put you away or cause you to stop defending yourself. Boxing not only teaches you this, but it trains you for the instinctive counterpunch. The second thing boxing helps you perfect is how to chain your blows in combinations."

[Don Gwinn]

Jack, I notice that Bullshido uses "RBSD" to mean everything from combatives to SCARS to "Model Mugging." These are not, from what I've been able to find, even similar systems.

When Quinn speaks of not training for a situation in which both combatants are trying to "win," he is defining "winning" as being the last man standing, arms upraised, your dominated opponent lying unconscious at your feet. He's saying that many times it's not appropriate on the street to do things that you would do in the ring. In the ring, you can certainly throw in the towel, but many fighters choose not to do so even when they appear to be thoroughly beaten. They do this because, in the ring, escaping without serious injury is not necessarily a "victory." In the ring, the standard is higher; to "win," you have to dominate your opponent to some extent and preferably submit him or knock him unconscious.

Quinn is simply saying that if you find yourself in a fight on the street, you should not be trained to believe instinctually that you have to remain in the fight no matter what, that you have to "see it through" or that you can't "win" unless you defeat your attacker at combat.

I think that's a valid concept, though I don't know how big a part it plays in Quinn's training so I can't say whether I think the stress he places on it is appropriate. But certainly, I think any MMA fighter worth his salt would admit that it makes sense to alter the mindset a bit on the street as opposed to the gym or the ring. Heck, how many times have you seen MMA fighters and boxers take on people no one thought they could possibly beat, simply for the challenge of fighting that person? Is that appropriate on the street? Put aside for the moment the fact that many of those MMA fighters are talented enough and well-enough trained that they can get away with this sort of thing with a little luck (like Omega's "Young and Stupid" stories.)



Your last sentence summarizes the main drawback to Quinn's method succinctly, but you ignore the advantages. Again, I feel compelled to point out that not everyone is the same. You perhaps are training to be the best fighter you can be, but if you were faced with Quinn's problem--training people who are essentially non-fighters and are not willing to become serious fighters--you, too, might concentrate a great deal on training confidence and aggressiveness.
And you, too, might find that even though stopping when things go bad has its drawbacks, you gain more than you lose if by doing so you instill confidence and aggression into people who utterly lacked both qualities before.

Can you train sheep the way you train wolves? I don't know, but that's the question Quinn is addressing with his methods. If you want to criticize his methods, you should be addressing that question too.

[JackHanma]

Jack, I notice that Bullshido uses "RBSD" to mean everything from combatives to SCARS to "Model Mugging." These are not, from what I've been able to find, even similar systems.

You are right that these systems are not similar in terms of system structure but the they are similiar in that they both make claims to be effective for all and are based on known principles of anatomy. Essentially what all RBSD have in common is the claim to be "reality based" by appealing to modern trade lauguage aka military/LE /scientific psychobable to give RBSD practitioners the crebility that they often lack in terms of objective performance.

In modern times faced with the stark face of a real terrorist enemy, the image of the wizened old kung-fu master with seemingly magical grace in beautiful yet super deadly movements passed down for generation to generation since ancient times has lost it power. It has given way to a seemingly less fanciful but dangerous stereotype of the young military special forces man that currently makes us feel safer through successful battles in distant third world countries. In short, the military man or Peace Officer has replaced the old man as an authority/security figure thus we as a society falsely attribute the idealic powers him as he is now the idealic protector for the modern age.

When Quinn speaks of not training for a situation in which both combatants are trying to "win," he is defining "winning" as being the last man standing, arms upraised, your dominated opponent lying unconscious at your feet. He's saying that many times it's not appropriate on the street to do things that you would do in the ring. In the ring, you can certainly throw in the towel, but many fighters choose not to do so even when they appear to be thoroughly beaten. They do this because, in the ring, escaping without serious injury is not necessarily a "victory." In the ring, the standard is higher; to "win," you have to dominate your opponent to some extent and preferably submit him or knock him unconscious.

That definition is flawed. The winning is and has always meant successfully fulfilling one's objectives. In the ring submission or knockout is simply the objective for that battlefield it is not higher not lower. Its just called higher the because it is harder to do than than "escaping" from some light contact simulation of fight. What is Quinn is objecting to is having a realistic objective standard of performance because most people won't like the reality that fighting is very hard work. Hard work doesn't sell well and Quinn knows it. He want to set the bar lower so that more people will feel safer and think they can "protect" themselves. It is the Belt Factory(tm) mindset at work again.

Quinn is simply saying that if you find yourself in a fight on the street, you should not be trained to believe instinctually that you have to remain in the fight no matter what, that you have to "see it through" or that you can't "win" unless you defeat your attacker at combat.

But you have to remain in the "fight" until your objectives are completed. The whole point to learning sports is about learning how to "keep at it" and not quit. That never give up attitude is vital to combat and should be encourged no discouraged. All Quinn is teaching is half ass effort because "winning" isn't necessary. That is not a habit of a highly effective person and in combat the only way to win is to be the effective person.

I think that's a valid concept, though I don't know how big a part it plays in Quinn's training so I can't say whether I think the stress he places on it is appropriate. But certainly, I think any MMA fighter worth his salt would admit that it makes sense to alter the mindset a bit on the street as opposed to the gym or the ring. Heck, how many times have you seen MMA fighters and boxers take on people no one thought they could possibly beat, simply for the challenge of fighting that person? Is that appropriate on the street? Put aside for the moment the fact that many of those MMA fighters are talented enough and well-enough trained that they can get away with this sort of thing with a little luck (like Omega's "Young and Stupid" stories.)

No you don''t alter your mindset you alter your objectives. Altering your "winning" mindset will only get you killed. You must simple think through the situation determine the proper objectives. You if are stupid and can't figure out the different between a steetfight and boxing match you need therapy not training.

Your last sentence summarizes the main drawback to Quinn's method succinctly, but you ignore the advantages. Again, I feel compelled to point out that not everyone is the same. You perhaps are training to be the best fighter you can be, but if you were faced with Quinn's problem--training people who are essentially non-fighters and are not willing to become serious fighters--you, too, might concentrate a great deal on training confidence and aggressiveness.
And you, too, might find that even though stopping when things go bad has its drawbacks, you gain more than you lose if by doing so you instill confidence and aggression into people who utterly lacked both qualities before.

I'm no athlete but I always try to train my best. If you aren't serious about protecting your own life or the lives or your loved ones you will never be able to succeed in either regardless of training. You don't gain confidence by stopping realistic training. You just become deluded about who you really are and what you can really do. I not going to place the safety of my family and myself in delusional self-confidence and blind aggression. Rather, I the safety of my family and myself in the hands of a competent experiecned individual (hopefully myself) with a combat tested system that works with scientific precision in his hands;
that is the real RBSD much like a well made tool in the hands of an expert user. There is something beautiful about that expert work or crasftmanship and so we call that beauty "art." Quinn is just another failed wannabe....unable to relized his own aspirations in the arts he tries to bring them down to his level. Its sad really..... Asia or Ronin69 are nice examples of true martial success which is why we respect them so much around here. They are artists. They have "gung-fu" or true skill and everybody knows it.

Can you train sheep the way you train wolves? I don't know, but that's the question Quinn is addressing with his methods. If you want to criticize his methods, you should be addressing that question too.

Its not about whether they are naturally wolves or sheep. Its about training to objectively improving performance. I don't care if the person is a natural dove or a serpent. I only care that they can strike like a serpent when it counts. If I have given them this ability my job is done. Its up to them to decided whether they are going to die or fight. God don't even intrude on people's free choice so why should I?

[Ronin]

The biggest problem with RBSD was and always will be that they train someone to fight someone with NO fighting skills, in other words, while most MA are suppose to teach a person how to fight and defeat another fighter ( though many fail in this regard), RBSD systems teach a person how to beat up on an untrained person.

That is why the have a tendancy of failing against traine fighters/street fighter/career criminals.

[RoninPimp]

"The problem with RBSD is that it lacks an objective standard with which to measure performance."

That's the best summery of the problem with RBSD ever!

[Matt Bernius]

O'Neill came to the U.S. during WWII and worked with the Canadians and Americans. He trained Kelly, who trained Nelson.

JAMA ran a good bio of O'Neill a few years ago. Might be worth reviewing SB.

2) Or this history of how Tony Blauer got involved in this training.

I think I can help with that.

- Matt

[Don Gwinn]

Jack, you make some good points, but I can't quite agree. It's obvious, though, that you've put a good deal of thought into this and come by your opinions honestly rather than simply parroting what you've been told. That alone deserves respect.

However, you betray a bias when you note that "the whole point of learning sports is to learn . . . not to quit . . . . vital to combat . . . " Well, sure, I'll admit that's true as far as it goes, but we're not discussing sports here, are we? And again, saying it's vital to combat seems to imply that doing damage to the other guy is the goal. In self defense, it's not.

And when you say that your job is done whether a person is more likely to choose to defend himself when the need arises or not, you reveal that you and Quinn (if he is taken at his word) are not working for the same purposes. Helping a person be more likely to defend himself rather than folding is a key objective of Quinn's approach and plays no part in yours, so it should not be surprising that you don't agree with his methods--but that doesn't make them wrong. I don't agree that building the willingness to fight back is not important.

Whatever I didn't mention, you can assume that I find pretty accurate.

[Mcleod]

Thanks....this is really informative stuff.

I don't really like the adrenalin type stuff...I think it might be useful for some people though.

It doesn't seem useful for a real working man or a guy who has been through any branch of the military's basic training though.

You get similar training by the drill sergeants in the army. After a while, the yelling and intimidation don't work anymore.

The same goes for Bill Kipp's training...If you train with a guy in a padded suit, that is very useful for practicing full force strikes, but it's still a guy in a suit.

for me personally, this training wouldn't be useful because I have already had guys in my face and yelling profanities at me in the army....

And if you train in a martial arts school that does full contact sparring from time to time, you will also get conditioned mentally to not freeze or be afraid when blows are thrown.

On the other hand, Bill Kipp's method looks like a pretty good method for children to overcome fear and react to a situation...

The stuff he does looks like it would be pretty good for your average middle aged business person or housewife who has never been exposed to violence or a scary situation. And there are lots of people out there who fit into that category. There's nothing at all wrong with that either...

It's a course that I would probably enroll my wife in if I had one and maybe my mom too...

I think it is useful as a one time thing, not a continuous thing...

I've never taken Bill Kipp's training. I thought it looked stupid...I wrote Bill Kipp an email and he responded in such a nice way....

Whatever you might think about his training, Bill Kipp is a really nice guy and seems happy to answer any questions. He doesn't make any kind of bogus claims or claim to be some kind of hero. He is an honest guy and really down to earth. He's such a nice guy that he really convinced me to look into his stuff more before bashing it.

Anyway, this is good info ..

I'd like to know if anyone has any experience with children going through Bill Kipp's or another similar program...

From what I can see, this might be a very useful program for kids....

I think it might be really scary for kids to have guys yelling and screaming at them with a big suit on, but that could be very useful in kidnapping prevention and things like that.

[1ofthepack]

I met kary several times out in Long Island,NY he came to train with Carl a few times. He served his country and that cannot be taken away from him but, he is BLIND! When I first heard of him teaching and seeing him move in person I asked Carl "He's teachin?" Carl shrugged his shoulders and gave me a look like I was an idiot and said " THE MAN IS BLIND" i DON'T MEAN HIS VISION IS POOR, HE IS BLIND! He cannot see , he cannot teach. Now , i,m not picking on a disable man, just think about it. We all watched Kung Fu as kids. and grabbing the rock from his Masters hand BUT, c,mon... Really... Sorry, but it's kinda silly... Jimbo