MMA is Not Self Defense!

[TTEscrima]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

They are common threads that are also present in sport fighting. I can't see why it is so hard for some people to admit that training in sport martial arts like Boxing, Wrestling, Judo, MMA, etc. can and does have very real benefits for real-world fighting. I really don't understand that.

I've not heard much complaining about Boxing, Wrestling or Judo, they all have their place in sport AND combatives but the BJJ component is poorly thought out and will result in getting you killed as a soldier or LEO. Take a look at the FM, not only do they teach things like techniques for passing the guard, one of them actually involves pushing on the abdomen while digging the elbow into the inside of the leg. If you have room to do that you have room to strike the groin. However, since that's against the MMA rule book it doesn't exist in the BJJ curriculum and now that technique is being taught to soldiers who will be fighting people who don't play by the sport rule book. Dumbshit like that gets people killed and it's the reason people object to the changes.

A quote from Col. Applegate's Kill or get Killed

"One school of thought, in unarmed combat circles, advocates
first closing with the enemy, throwing him to the ground, then dispatching him. The other, and most successful, insists that blows used to down the opponent are preferable to throws, and that they can be taught to and used by the average man much more speedily. Naturally, throws will have to be used in many instances; but actual combat has shown that well-placed blows by the hands or feet, in many instances, can accomplish the desired result more quickly and more easily. Two good general rules in unarmed combat are:

(1) Keep your opponent at arm’s length by the use of hand
and foot blows. Many times, when you are in a position to
start to close with an opponent so as to throw or trip him,
you will be able to use blows instead. (2) Avoid, if at all
possible, going to the ground with your adversary. Try to
avoid getting close to him. Being close, you will not have
room to see what he is up to or be able to work with the best effect. If you are smaller than your opponent and go
to the ground with him, his superior weight and strength will
always give him an advantage, whether he utilizes it or not.
The danger of being stunned upon impact with the ground
surface also presents a good reason for not closing with the
opponent if it can be avoided"

Now check out these quotes from FM3 21-150:

"Basic ground-fighting techniques build a fundamental understanding of dominant body position, which should be the focus of most combatives training before moving on to the more difficult standing techniques. Ground fighting is also where technique can most easily be used to overcome size and strength."

It even goes further to say:

"Strikes are an inefficient method of ending a fight. However, they are a significant part of most fights, and a soldier must have an understanding of fighting at striking range. It is important to note that while at striking range, you are open to being struck. For this reason, it is often better to avoid striking range."

I agree that WWII combatives are not the end all and be all of combat, but they're infinitely better than bjj. If you're close enough to grapple your opponent is close enough to strike, bite, stab, slash, etc. Whether you are trained to deal with knives or not, grappling makes them harder to defend against. You can lose awareness or control of an arm, that arm can be used to draw a knife. I would rather have a little distance between me and a knife.

I am NOT saying grappling should not be practiced. If you can't fight on the ground then that's precisely where you will find yourself. I simply disagree with much of what is being taught. Passing the guard is not essential, escaping the guard, yes, but not passing it, many of the methods they are teaching are not combat oriented, they're sport oriented. For example, one technique consists of the soldier pressing on the stomach of the enemy and sitting upright on his knees. Then he passes the leg over a shoulder, etc. At no time in the in the lesson does the soldier strike. The entire sequence should contain multiple shots to the groin. There are numerous other ways to escape the guard that are more applicable to combat.

As far combative sports go, I love them. They are a great way to keep in shape and they teach you to learn to overcome some pain in a controlled environment. However, soldiers should already have these traits.

[Mike Brewer]

I would rather have a little distance between me and a knife.

While I agree entirely that distance is your friend, my real-life experience has shown me that it's rarely possible. If I have distance on my side, I've got news for you - I'm not punching or kicking either. I'm shooting. I'm caling in air or artillery. I'm doing anything but engaging in a fair fight. And as you mentioned somewhere else regarding knives, if I find myself in a knife fight, it was likely an ambush, and if I'm using a knife on someone else, you'd better believe I'm ambushing them. And in the case of the latter, I will likely be very, very close (and preferrably at the 6 o'clock position).

BJJ catches a lot of flack, and I think that's the result of some of the Gracies running their yaps about how invincible they were back in the day. To some degree, it's a desrved comeuppance. However, I also think BJJ has come a long way, and you're crazy if you think the practitioners of BJJ completely discount knives, guns, and mass attack. Sport focused schools will, of course, focus on sport. But there are people like Rickson out there who not only acknowledge reality, but devote themselves to it by practicing mass attack and carrying a pistol. MMA has shown most of today's youth that you can't just rely on one range anymore, so in a sense, they're preaching the same thing you are. Almost no one is advocating just being a good ground guy or just being a good striker anymore, and so to that extent, MMA has actually opened people's eyes to the need to be well-rounded.

An MMA guy stepping into the realm of real-world self-protection would probably be very open to and aware of the need to expand his game by studying across the full spectrum of what's likely to happen. He'd already have that mindset.

In that sense, it sounds like your issue is far more BJJ specific than MMA specific.

[Garland]

I think the shit depends upon the situation entirely. I a guy gives me his back, I'll be tempted to choke the shit out of him...If he comes straight on, I'm going to want to kick his leg or hook his jaw...if it's already close, Headbutt, Knee, Elbow, etc...all guns firing.

If it's a serious situation- use the environment as a weapon, or use whatever I have on hand.

I mean...that makes more sense than- "this is the better strategy" shit. Let the situation dictate strategy. Unfettered mind, mofo.

[TTEscrima]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

While I agree entirely that distance is your friend, my real-life experience has shown me that it's rarely possible. If I have distance on my side, I've got news for you - I'm not punching or kicking either. I'm shooting. I'm caling in air or artillery. I'm doing anything but engaging in a fair fight.

If you don't voluntarily close the distance due to a preconceived notion and fight strategy like the one dictated in the FM you'll have distance on your side, that's my whole point. They took a strategy designed for the ring and put it on the battlefield. I found keeping a little distance and using a short stick worked very well for controlling people without having to kill them or get close enough to allow them to kill me. If you shoot everyone who resist or who pulls a knife you'll never get to question anyone, as for calling in arty or air on someone close enough to use a knife on you, well I don't think that really needs a comment now does it? Using a short stick allows you to humanely disarm or stun people instead of shooting them in front of their wife and kids 45 seconds after their front door was kicked in and is a FAR better option than trying to use bjj to subdue them. Many times just having money in the house was reason enough to detain the head of the family for questioning, shooting a family member who gets excited during this time frame is not going to help your cause. Thats where the problem is, most people admit the BJJ component was added to help in detaining and controlling people, yet you're expected to use it on people who are usually armed and have friends and family present. On a side note, imagine the position the BJJ mentality puts a soldier in if we happen to have a problem with a country known for human wave attacks like say, Iran or China, rolling around on the ground waiting to see whose friends show up with a gun first (per the manual) suddenly seems pretty fucking stupid doesn't it?

Somehow the Army went from "close with and destroy the enemy." to "close with and make him tap out."

[Mike Brewer]

Somehow the Army went from "close with and destroy the enemy." to "close with and make him tap out."

No they didn't.

They still vastly prefer airstrikes, artillery, mortars, close armor support, grenades, machine gunners, snipers, assault rifles, pistols, bayonets, and knives as the progression before resorting to that last ditch "control him until your buddy can stick him from behind" philosophy. The primary mission has always been killing people and breaking things. Trouble is, now there's a news camera taping it and exploiting them for it when they do.

[TTEscrima]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

No they didn't.

They still vastly prefer airstrikes, artillery, mortars, close armor support, grenades, machine gunners, snipers, assault rifles, pistols, bayonets, and knives as the progression before resorting to that last ditch "control him until your buddy can stick him from behind" philosophy. The primary mission has always been killing people and breaking things. Trouble is, now there's a news camera taping it and exploiting them for it when they do.

Aw c'mon now, that shit was funny. I was making light of the concept that shit went completely wrong because an American soldier is fighting with his hands, and yet the training is predicated on your friends getting there first, that isn't realism, it's optimism. Whatever happened to train for the worst hope for the best?

[Tant01]

Originally Posted by TTEscrima

Aw c'mon now, that shit was funny. I was making light of the concept that shit went completely wrong because an American soldier is fighting with his hands, and yet the training is predicated on your friends getting there first, that isn't realism, it's optimism. Whatever happened to train for the worst hope for the best?

Made me laugh...

Picture a jar head with the "TAP-OUT" Logo shaved into his haircut...

I don't think holding someone on the deck with your boot is a BJJ move though? Kinda like the M-16 in his face...

[TTEscrima]

Originally Posted by Tant01

Made me laugh...

Picture a jar head with the "TAP-OUT" Logo shaved into his haircut...

I don't think holding someone on the deck with your boot is a BJJ move though?

When a Marine taps you out, there are only two taps and it's permanent.

[Mike Brewer]

Originally Posted by TTEscrima

Aw c'mon now, that shit was funny. I was making light of the concept that shit went completely wrong because an American soldier is fighting with his hands, and yet the training is predicated on your friends getting there first, that isn't realism, it's optimism. Whatever happened to train for the worst hope for the best?

Budget cuts.

[kingoftheforest]

I call the wait for your buddies to save you system the Disney Princess mentality.

I'd rather not wait for PFC charming to rescue me.

[Tant01]

Originally Posted by TTEscrima

When a Marine taps you out, there are only two taps and it's permanent.

Only if you're an enemy...

[Mike Brewer]

I mentioned before that this was a predictable discussion following a predictable script???

Lest we lose sight of the meat of the thread...I don't think anyone disagrees that there are major weaknesses in any system that requires a fully laden soldier, complete with Interceptor, 13 magazines, night vision pegged to one leg, gas mask pegged to the other, butt pack full of pogey bait in the small of his back and a rifle slung over his shoulder to go to the ground. I am and always have been very, very critical of going to the ground in any real fight. I think the primary reason to study ground fighting is so that you can be better able to get up if the fight ends up there. I also think it is totally and completely assinine to purposefully take an opponent to the ground if you have all that shit strapped to your body and a HMMWV with a .50 on top parked at your flank.

But if I am being totally honest about the kinds of fights soldiers face, the simple fact is, if they're geared up and ready for a fight, they are not alone. If they're geared up and ready, they aren't empty-handed. The chances of a soldier getting in a knock-down drag out fight with some Iraqi out in indian country without a weapon or his buddies at his side is anorexic slim. On the other hand, the chances of him getting in a fight with a POW or detainee in an area where weapons are not allowed and being authorized to kill said detainee are equally slim.

Faced with a fight out in the AO, he's going to shoot, move, communicate. There won't be any choking or pulling guard anywhere. Back blast areas will be called clear and great huge orangey fireballs will billow forth from hostile territory. Faced with a fight in say, Guantanamo or some such, shooting the bad guy in the head will also likely not be an approved manner of engagement. There is a valid need for both types of abilities, and denying that's so is to deny the fact that the modern battlefield comes with a different set of concerns than did the World War II battlefield. I think this whole argument is a matter of tempering preference with practiced pragmatism. I don't personally care for groundfighting, but it truly has a place. I'd rather shoot a bad guy and lighten the load, but there are times when that's just a stupid idea. Preference really doesn't have much place on the battlefield. Necessity does, though, and if there's a time and place for it on the battlefield, there ought to be a time and place for it in the soldier's training.

[Garland]

Can we ALL at least agree that Tai Chi is not self defense?

[Mike Brewer]

Holy shit...Garland, you couldn't have picked a worse crowd for that comment.

[TTEscrima]

Originally Posted by Garland

Can we ALL at least agree that Tai Chi is not self defense?

Absolutely, NO art is, except Yellow Bamboo of course.