Standards; How Do You Know You Are Competent

[ncrockclimb]

There are tons of tests for a person to evaluate their level of fitness or shooting ability. Some martial arts have belt rankings, but those are subjective and vary GREATLY between different styles. Is there a general standard or test that individuals can use to judge their overall unarmed self-defense competence?

I would think that any evaluation would include fitness, technical skill and the ability to deal with the emotional stress of an assault. I also think that unarmed combat is way too complex for a on size fits all test. Then again, I am in NO WAY an expert on this subject. I am just putting my thoughts out there to get the conversation started. I would be very interested to hear what Cecil, Southern Narc and the other subject matter experts have to say on the subject.

[Suvorov]

Disregard.....

[PNWTO]

Just my initial $.02, but I feel if one could go to a IBJJF tourney and get on the podium for their age/weight class, even as a white belt, they would be far ahead of the general public.

There’s a great post in the reference section that relates to this.

[jetfire]

Personally, I’d say take ECQC or EWO and use it as an audit to establish your baseline. If you get your shitter inverted, sign up for some good Brazilian jujitsu classes.

[ncrockclimb]

Just my initial $.02, but I feel if one could go to a IBJJF tourney and get on the podium for their age/weight class, even as a white belt, they would be far ahead of the general public.

There’s a great post in the reference section that relates to this.


Personally, I’d say take ECQC or EWO and use it as an audit to establish your baseline. If you get your shitter inverted, sign up for some good Brazilian jujitsu classes.

I totally agree with both points. I think that if you are training in a good school then your bases are covered.

[Cecil Burch]

H2H fighting standards fit right into the proverbial Supreme Court obscenity standards - "you know it when you see it"

The problem really arises because it is hard to determine what kind of fight you will face. Will it be 2-3 seconds and done? Or will it be a long process over minutes? Will it be against some 135 pound methhead, or will it be against a dedicated violent criminal actor who is used to giving and receiving pain?

My personal standard is dealing with a worst case scenario. Let's postulate an experienced VCA catching me by surprise right while I am recovering from a bad bout of flu. A nightmare, and I will most likely be starting from an initiative and positional deficit, and my mental and physical condition will not be at peak. So I need to assume the fight will go more than seconds and against a tough opponent who is bigger, stronger, tougher, faster, meaner, younger, and less injured than I am. Because if I have the physical capacity to take care of that, seeing a tweaker come at me is going to be easier and I already have the fight standards to deal with him, but the reverse ( focusing on dealing with the tweaker and then facing a VCA with initiative) will not work.

Probably the best standard then is can you fight consistently well against your peer for at least 5 minutes? And can you do that over and over, on demand and at will? And can you then at least hold your own against someone superior to you again and again? I don't think there is one set of standards, but a few of them together can work. Some of them have been mentioned already. Being in a legitimate fighting gym like a BJJ school, or a good (i.e. non meathead environment) MMA school, or a boxing/Muay Thai gym and being able to spar against others daily is a good standard. For example, at my BJJ academy, in the Advanced class, we always finish with 5 rounds of 6 minute length with 45 seconds in between. If you can roll against your peers, or even those higher than you on the foodchain, for all those rounds and not sit any out and perform adequately throughout, I would argue you are at a pretty reasonable standard for fight ability.

Adding in something like a tournament is great, because it truly requires you to perform on someone else's time frame under a rule set you do not set, in front of many judging eyes, and there is an absolute metric you must perform to. I maintain that doing a BJJ tournament is the equivalent of 3-6 months of regular training. Also doing something extreme like ECQC or EWO once a year is a good audit of your current capability. I would also put out similar with my final "graduation exercise" I do at the end of each day of my coursework.

We probably should do all of that over a 2 year window to really see where we are at, and if we meet that minimal fight standard.

[Cecil Burch]

Actually, you do not always need to go in for a full tournament or weekend long course to get a quick audit.

Case in point ; this past Saturday I taught at a BJJ school in NorCal. It is a really good gym with a number of tough and high level competitors. They have not spent a lot of time on self-defense considerations and they brought me in to get them a rundown on tweaks they should be looking at. I went over a few things as far as standing and understanding distance and how to close against an attacker. Then I split the gorup into two groups and one group went into the back room where they could not see or hear what I was saying. To the group that remained I gave them training weapons - NOK knives and blue guns - and told them to conceal them and not reveal that they had them, and that during the next drill they could deploy them whenever they felt like it. The first group came out, not knowing this, and I just had everyone pair up and just do a light flow roll to "get warmed up". Then at some point during that round, the armed ones went to town. Even the head black belt got "killed". IT was eye opening to say the least, but it was quick and easy, and it let them know beyond a doubt that their current standards were not up to snuff.

So there are drills/methods where we can get quick checks as well.

[Paul Sharp]

... I would think that any evaluation would include fitness, technical skill and the ability to deal with the emotional stress of an assault. I also think that unarmed combat is way too complex for a on size fits all test...

We have to look at the fitness requirements of a fight. In general we usually utilize all three energy systems. ATP-PC, Lactic Acid, and Aerobic. A test for fighting fitness should probably address this issue.

A technical skill test will need to cover stand-up, clinch, and the ground. What is a good way to assess our ability to throw punches, kicks, while also being on the receiving end of punches, and kicks? Clinch involves throws, and takedowns, while not being thrown or taken down. The ground involves getting on top, and staying on top while also having the ability to safely bail on a position. Overall the skillset wouldn't be that broad. The test should be simple.

Mental toughness or resilience would be the most challenging to test. How does one test adaptability to chaos? Unexpected problem solving under pressure?

I think those are the questions I'd focus on to design an evaluation, and establish standards.

[ncrockclimb]

Actually, you do not always need to go in for a full tournament or weekend long course to get a quick audit.

Case in point ; this past Saturday I taught at a BJJ school in NorCal. It is a really good gym with a number of tough and high level competitors. They have not spent a lot of time on self-defense considerations and they brought me in to get them a rundown on tweaks they should be looking at. I went over a few things as far as standing and understanding distance and how to close against an attacker. Then I split the gorup into two groups and one group went into the back room where they could not see or hear what I was saying. To the group that remained I gave them training weapons - NOK knives and blue guns - and told them to conceal them and not reveal that they had them, and that during the next drill they could deploy them whenever they felt like it. The first group came out, not knowing this, and I just had everyone pair up and just do a light flow roll to "get warmed up". Then at some point during that round, the armed ones went to town. Even the head black belt got "killed". IT was eye opening to say the least, but it was quick and easy, and it let them know beyond a doubt that their current standards were not up to snuff.

So there are drills/methods where we can get quick checks as well.


We have to look at the fitness requirements of a fight. In general we usually utilize all three energy systems. ATP-PC, Lactic Acid, and Aerobic. A test for fighting fitness should probably address this issue.

A technical skill test will need to cover stand-up, clinch, and the ground. What is a good way to assess our ability to throw punches, kicks, while also being on the receiving end of punches, and kicks? Clinch involves throws, and takedowns, while not being thrown or taken down. The ground involves getting on top, and staying on top while also having the ability to safely bail on a position. Overall the skillset wouldn't be that broad. The test should be simple.

Mental toughness or resilience would be the most challenging to test. How does one test adaptability to chaos? Unexpected problem solving under pressure?

I think those are the questions I'd focus on to design an evaluation, and establish standards.

Thank you both for the thoughtful and detailed responses.

[Sal Picante]

Mental toughness or resilience would be the most challenging to test. How does one test adaptability to chaos? Unexpected problem solving under pressure?


It's called: "Get married then have kids"...

That's a helluva mental toughness test... :rolleyes:

Ask me how I know... Lemme just finish this drink first.

[OMWAG]

evaluating competency is contingent on what skill set you are evaluating. Accuracy, completion time, and other skills that can be scored have standard by which a person can be evaluated. However, the only way to evaluate competency when there is no way to gauge success other than pass/fail is a whole different story. CQB and H2H skills can only be proven in a real world situation.For the 4 years I was in USMC Security Force Battalion we trained regularly in every aspect of providing security to VIP people and places. That training is invaluable, but it does not indicate how well you will do in a real life situation. the words innovate and improvise were drilled. into our heads because that is what you have to do in a SHTF situation. From personal experience I can assure you that training and testing matter but they do not prove competency level.That level has to be evaluated after the action. That is what After Action Reports are for. What did you do right or wrong and how do you improve from the experience. Believe me, the best thing that can happen is that you never have to test your training, but if you do have to you will have a damn good idea of your competency level, if you live. I will end it here. The rest would be 'war stories.'

[Cheap Shot]

It's called: "Get married then have kids"...

That's a helluva mental toughness test... :rolleyes:

Ask me how I know... Lemme just finish this drink first.

Speaking just for myself, and my experience the example above falls into the category of:

Don't do stupid things

With stupid people

In stupid places