The New Beginning: Some more thoughts on RBSD/RBF

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Some more thoughts on RBSD/RBF

A conundrum.

I was going through some more websites on Monday to see what had been updated. iirc, Paul Vunak used to be associated with JKD and Dan Inosanto; after his time with Bruce Lee, Dan Inosanto had returned to his roots by learning Filipino martial arts, and Paul Vunak was a beneficiary of this. How good is he? In a time of relative peace, when hand-to-hand combat is rare, how do teachers or instructors prove their expertise? Sparring bound by rules and safety considerations is not a good way to make that sort of judgment, since survival does matter. (Which does not mean that disproportionate responses are permitted; how easily can a sparring contest escalate without rules?) Picking real fights or duelling, like Musashi Miyamoto, does not seem to be a morally acceptable way to test one's self, though.

A compromise might be full-contact fighting, with safety equipment. Tony Blauer who is markets full-body protective equipment. Using such equipment seems suitable for practicing specific techniques, or simulating certain conditions (e.g. operators wearing tactical gear and body armor), but wouldn't it hinder speed and reaction while practicing combat under other conditions (meeting an asailant while one is in a business suit or casual clothing, for instance)?

Progressive Fighting Systems by Paul Vunak
paulvunak.com
PFS Video
Paul Vunak Interview - Progressive Combat Systems
Paul Vunak @ Youtube
Budotalk.com

Mr. Vunak has claimed to have taught the SEALs and developed their training program, but there is much doubt about the veracity of his claims.

I'm surprised SCARS is still in business. Many of those who knew something about MA or reality-based fighting and bought SCARS products were vocal in their claim that the system was a fraud.

A discussion of Sammy Franco at bullshido.net. Discussion of bullshido @ Sammy Franco's forum.

Under limited conditions one might be able to judge proficiency, but this would be proficiency in certain skills only, not in overall 'expertise'. For example, in wing chun there are the chi sao exercises. A wing chun master would be an expert in chi sao and the skills that it involves (sensitivity with the arms and hands, use of certain techniques, defending certain lines), but does being adept at chi sao mean one is a good fighter or able to counter someone who does not engage in close in-fighting as a rule? Can chi sao skills be applied against a grappler, or be used as a part of grappling? Similarly, knowledge of forms or principles/'philosophy' can be tested, but this is not enough to make a good fighter.

It seems to be easier to make judgments about one's proficiency with weapons, since dummy weapons (of the same weight as the real ones) can be employed.

I can understand why those who prefer RBSD have a "what gets results" or "what works" mentality, which is often ascribed to authentic JKD as well. How much of hand-to-hand combat can be 'scientific'? Or more accurately, can fighting skills be explained by certain fundamental principles? And are some principles better than others in attaining certain ends? For example, is it always important to protect one's centerline?

William Cheung - central line vs. centerline 1
William Cheung - central line vs. centerline 2

Secret of the Fourth Center - Grandmaster William Cheung's ...
Understanding Traditional Wing Chun by Sifu Victor Parlati

Tommy Caruthers - jeet kune do