Mike Brewer

I understand, TT. I read that letter a long time ago. What I mean by "out of context" is that this is a thread about MMA not being adequate for self-defense. In that context, you quoted a letter written during a time when the Army was looking for a new method and ended up using...MMA. Yes, they used it as a part of a larger whole (as we've all agreed is a great idea and the only good way to go), but when the professionals needed something that worked, they settled on a rough approximation of MMA to find it. Since your argument all along has been that MMA does nothing to prepare you for a real fight, I find it odd that you'd quote a letter from the man who helped develop and institute a program of MMA for real soldiers in real war. You countered your own points.

Also, it's a plain fact that there wasn't much (read: any) solid combatives training going on before MACP came along. It was a bunch of tired stuff that had been diluted by a lack of expertise and "FM-itis" to the point that all it was really good for in most places was teaching mindset and killer instinct.

(As a side note, I've made that statement before and caught hell for it, but I still maintain it's the truth. There are exceptions to be sure, but that's what they are - exceptions)

After MACP, combatives training took off. Everyone is now required to go through a Level One certification in the Army, which means that the foundation of every soldier's combative training is now MMA. More specifically at level one, it is Brazilian Jiujitsu and little more. The theory, then, that MMA cannot and does not prepare people for real fights is blown all to little itty bitty pieces because that's what is currently being used, and it's working.

As for the context, no letter or statement provides context. What I meant by context is the overall world situation surrounding the writing of that letter. What was going on? What inspired that letter? What was happening that made a switch necessary in the first place? And then there's the overall question of whther or not Matt Larsen was right in deciding what he did. (That too is debatable). I didn't mean that your taking the letter out of context was a negative thing, mind you - just that it's dangerous to show one pice of one point of view without recognizing the place it fills within a much larger and more complex whole.

By way of illustration, I might be talking to one student who has great footwork and hand speed, but no power in his punches. I might have a conversation with him one day in which I tell him something like, "Listen up. The most important thing for you to work on in your fighting skill set is power. Without it, no amount of moving around and touching the guy are going to matter." For that guy in that context, that may be a valid bit of advice. But let's say another guy on another day is there and he has power to spare. He can knock down elephants with either hand, but his shoes are made of lead-lined cement and he's got the head movement of a dime store mannequin. I say to him, "Brother, I want you to forget about working on your power. The most important thing for you to work on is going to be getting up on the balls of your feet and getting mobile. Without movement, that power isn't going to do you any good." Again, for that guy in that context - good advice. But if all you do is stick the two quotes side by side, it looks like a complete contradiction:

The context, the surrounding events, and yes - the audience - are important factors. That's all I was trying to point out. Not a dig against you by any means, TT. I'm just suggesting that on a different day to a different audience under different circumstances, you're likely to read different opinions from the same guy...based on context.