Modern Reality Based Martial Arts (RBMA) are good for the most part and certainly have a place in acquiring skills in self-defense, in fact I teach RBMA at my school. What troubles me is how many proponents of RBMA often promote what they do as something new and improved, a system that really works, a system that’s no nonsense, a system that’s for the street, etc.

By comparison they imply traditional martial arts don’t work because they use ranking systems, practice Kata, learn Asian customs, meditate, teach self-improvement, and practice out dated material like the Samurai Sword for example. I can’t help having some trouble understanding how RBMA are more effective in the street because they don’t use rank, don’t bow or don’t wear a traditional uniforms. I’m I missing something or does that sound a little ridiculous? Some of the worlds best known martial figures practice traditional arts, Bruce Lee, Steven Segal, Jet Li, Chuck Norris, Dan Inosanto, Ji Han Jae, I could go on for an hour but you see my point.

I’m also trying to think of a traditional martial art that’s not rooted in reality but I’m having trouble naming any. It’s a historical fact that martial arts were developed for survival on the battlefield, self protection and self preservation. Let me be the first to admit we live in a modern society not Feudal Japan but the techniques of the Samurai still hold as much water today as they did then with few exceptions.

The reality based systems I observed like Karav Maga, Combato, Karav Maga, RAT, etc… clearly use the same skills and techniques taught in Karate, Jujitsu, Judo, Kung Fu, Kali, Muay Thai, etc… I find that kind of strange because after all many RBMA claim traditional systems are just done for preserving outdated ancient tradition and the material taught doesn’t work in the streets. Why then do RBMA use the same exact out dated material as Traditional MA?

Lets use this example to make a point. A student of a traditional school might learn to use a sword, he would learn how to cut, strike, block, how to retain their weapon, defend attacks, and they would develop attributes like speed, timing, distancing, focus, angles of movement, etc… The RBMA also needs to learn the same skills and attributes as well. I for one would hate to be the guy who jumped a good sword practitioner who adapted a stick, a car antenna, or 2×4 is the street. See the point!

Having been studying martial arts for about 30 years what I’ve found is that traditional schools sometimes focus on sport or kata and don’t spend all their time in street defense training vs. RBMA that only works on street fighting skills. Other schools like mine teach, reality based street self-defense, meditation, philosophy, personal development, bowing, earning belt rank, wear uniforms, and I can assure you we can defend ourselves.

In my opinion is RBMA isn’t better suited for street self-defense it’s just a myth. Some people like to carve out a niche for themselves so they can sell some more instructional DVDs and do some seminars, other folks just don’t have the taste for traditional asian culture or schools which is also fine but proves nothing about a lack of street effectiveness in traditional martial arts.

I would say if you want basic self defense and nothing more RBMA is a good place to start, but if you want a richer more well rounded experience in martial arts training find a school that offers the best of both worlds.

Stay Safe and Be Healthy!

Sincerely,

Stuart Rosenberg