It's always dangerous to quote out of context, which is what you've done here, TT. Those quotes were in reference to why the Army decided to add things like BJJ and other MMA based training methods (along with stick and knife training from kali, courtesy of Marc Denny and pals) instead of relying on pure boxing. In other words, you're shooting your own argument in the foot. The Army - specifically Matt Larsen and his command - decided that they needed to fix the problems that were associated with the program taught to soldiers before. To do that, they shied away from a lot of the Fairbairn - Applegate - Sykes based material and traditional based stuff that had been taught before and incorporated things you can use and train against active resistance. In other words, they incorporated wrestling, BJJ, kickboxing, and kali.
The quotes you've chosen are persuasive, but put into their original context and into the context of what was happening in the Army at the time MACP was introduced, they hurt your argument. It's like this statement:
Quote:
|
"Lets face it, there has never been a time when the average soldier was competent with the techniques that the Army doctrine called for them to know."
|
One way to read that is that the soldiers were not capable of performing effectively given the nature of Army requirements.
Another way to read it is that soldiers have never been able to learn all that the Army requires of them.
The first is a negative statement about the Army's requirements; the second is a negative statement about the soldier. Context is the key to understanding and putting it into its proper frame. Since soldiers have all entered combat for the first time with nothing except their training - no real-world experience at all - the training is indeed of real value.