Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Brewer
Ahh! But that untrained, under supplied, untested militia was neither untested nor untrained!
They'd been tested (the leaders, anyway) as British officers, and they had been tested in the French and Indian War before the Revolution. Besides, they were falling apart and near decimation until? That's right! Until Von Steuben was brought in to... train them. In other words, it took a good foundation in discipline and drill before the Americans were an effective fighting force. Before that, all they had was, well, reality. Reality without training had resulted in near catastrophic losses and nearly knocked the Revolution down before it got going. So I guess what I'm trying to say is...thanks for proving my point.  |
Actually I ambushed you. The rifled barrel was the difference, it's what allowed the use of tactics that were unknown due to the silly idea of set rules in war. The British actually had to capture American fighters and take them to England to show their superiors that we could hit a squirrel while they couldn't hit a barn. It wasn't the old school training of any of the people you named it was ingenuity and will to survive that allowed us to defeat the British methods. Their set ways of training were their downfall. We had developed the rifled barrel for hunting small game to eat, our real world experience helped us defeat the far better trained army who trained for a specific type of conflict because they believed it was superior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Brewer
So while we are in 10000% agreement that MMA is not self-defense, I have to stand firmly behind the idea that it certainly can contribute to effective self-defense ability so long as one doesn't fall into the trap of believing it's the answer all by itself.
|
That I agree with.