MMA Sport fighting and Kung Fu combative, the real difference...

[jubaji]

feel free to look it up.

feel free to look it up.

Folks who back up their claims in this manner reveal a lot about themselves.

[USArmyBJJ]

So from these experts in reality combat survival fighting we can see that they agree with me. So those who simply mock what I say are also fighting against the experts and those who train the military etc. Those who say I speak BS are atually totally wrong and embarrassing themselves in here and exposing their lack of understanding and fighting against these experts and more. But they are also putting others in danger by not instructing them for real combat survival in the streets.

To clarify - this article only says that the military is "interested in" John Pellegrini's system (Whatever that means). It should be noted that current Modern Army Combatives is based largely on BJJ and MMA, and the competitions resemble those activities. It's actually quite an interesting history. You can read about it here: United States Army Combatives School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While you're at it, you might want to consider reading this: Appeal to authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll respond to your other post (re: stances, etc) in a while - after I've had time to think about it more thoroughly. I do agree, however, that stance is very important in a fight.

[-FIGJAM-]

wtf is "LARPers"??

What the army trains for and self defense in my opinion should be separate. End of the day the armies hand to hand combat (in Australia) is basically get a entrenching tool and swing. Yes we do study kickboxing and vice verse, but the idea behind their training is to disable and eliminate.

TC i think what your saying about kickboxing is a bit harsh, what do you mean by a strong stance? correct me if im wrong but doesnt every fighting style has a fighters stance that is designed for effectiveness against kicks, take downs etc?

I have to agree with previous posts, if you dont train against someone who is adding resistance and trying to counter, etc etc then how do you know and i mean actually know how effective your moves are? anyone can eye gouge some wanna be footballer who tackles and then throws punches, but could u do it to someone who wraps you up in a head lock that will make you pass out within a minute?

Yes i train to do a arm bar from different positions and situations, but in a street fight like hell im going to actually use a arm bar, but what i might use is the bridge and roll technique. I might break ankles and hell i might poke a eye or bite a ear... My Mauy Thai techniques are going to come in handy in a street fight. Do you see what point im making?

Matter of fact, did Mike Tyson bite someones ear almost off? Pretty sure he still lost that bout.

[TTEscrima]

Do you have a cite for this? A Google search didn't reveal anything like this, so I'm pretty interested in the context for it.

It's been posted here, and SOCNET feel free to look it up. I'm not trying to be short, but this subject was beaten to death here and dozens of other sites.

I'd like to see a cite with this as well. This USOC article from February 2008 says the direct opposite: 1ST Special Forces Group (Airborne) develops functional combatives program for operators, support elements

In fact, the article says specifically that the focus is on MMA techniques.

It's been posted here, and SOCNET feel free to look it up, I'm tired of posting it and debating it.

Thanks for your service. What branch? MOS? I'm Army....if you couldn't tell from my SN.

Navy, Master at Arms.

I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt SF guys are going behind enemy lines to engage in H2H with enemies. I'm not Spec Ops, but I just don't see that as particularly realistic.

Apparently you're also not familiar with their history, the first NCDU units wore swim trunks and only carried a knife when they went into Japanese strongholds to recon them. In current times they may not intend to engage in H2H but if you're familiar with war, things don't usually go as planned even when you're winning.

In one H2H encounter behind the lines an Army ranger had to be rescued from a Grandmother who took him down and choked him out while her sons escaped the raid, the Ranger had to be saved by teammates and the targets escaped while they were distracted...the exact protocol they were trained to use cost them the mission.

This site has about 3 vets who post period, try SOCNET and sites with higher numbers of vets/active duty and you'll note they are less than in love with the MMA based combatives.

[jubaji]

But the real aspect that creates results is techniques and when a person learns how to control their body movement. Strong stances are also important, and having the ability to move from stance to stance quickly.

Straight from the LARPers handbook.

[USArmyBJJ]

Matt's also admitted the program is a failure.

Do you have a cite for this? A Google search didn't reveal anything like this, so I'm pretty interested in the context for it.

NO SF unit has undergone MAC training in a number of years, it was formally replaced at the insistence of those running the schools with LINE and *gasp* TCMA's.

I'd like to see a cite with this as well. This USOC article from February 2008 says the direct opposite: 1ST Special Forces Group (Airborne) develops functional combatives program for operators, support elements

In fact, the article says specifically that the focus is on MMA techniques.

I did over 20 years, I'm retired, my last duty was in the box.

Thanks for your service. What branch? MOS? I'm Army....if you couldn't tell from my SN.

Imagine how badly SF who operate behind enemy lines are outnumbered, you think they wait on back up to win a H2H confrontation? What about escaped POW's or downed aircrews? They're supposed to roll around on the ground and hope friendly forces show up first too? Sometimes people don't think, they just swallow whatever line was fed to them as gospel, it makes them great cannon fodder.

I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt SF guys are going behind enemy lines to engage in H2H with enemies. I'm not Spec Ops, but I just don't see that as particularly realistic.

Heres something to consider,

Here is something I read a while ago in the Black Belt Magazine ,

"If your on the ground, you need to immediately strike hard. The head is the main target. Take out the eyes, the breathing apparatus, the throat, the nerve groups" (pg 89 Black Belt magazine Januray 2009 edition, by a master named, John Pelegrini, who was introduced into the Black belt hall of fame in 2004 as instructor of the year. His fighting system is one of the systems that the US military is interested in)

He also said,

"...I am appauled that some units learn Brazillian jujitsu and are encouraged to fight on the ground...But the idea is to immediately dislodge the person and recover the dominant standing position. It's not about grappling and rolling on the ground." (pg 91 Black Belt Magazine)

Another man in the same magazine unde a different article said,

"MMA competition is first and foremost a dueling environment. Self defese is an entirely different animal, and the legal system requires requires you distinguish between the two. "

Wim Demeere is a reality based self defense instructor.

And one more expert says,

"Techniques that would be considered dirty fighting in most martial arts_attacks on the eyes and airways-are staples of reality based self defense." (Henry Kou page, 118, Black belt magazine, he is a level four instructor in Commando Krav maga)

So from these experts in reality combat survival fighting we can see that they agree with me. So those who simply mock what I say are also fighting against the experts and those who train the military etc. Those who say I speak BS are atually totally wrong and embarrassing themselves in here and exposing their lack of understanding and fighting against these experts and more. But they are also putting others in danger by not instructing them for real combat survival in the streets.

"...I do think that certain styles and certain training techniques are more likely to yield results more efficiently. My hypothesis is that sport martial arts are more likely to efficiently breed good fighters because each fighter consistently pressure-tests their techniques and thus, marries theory and application"

Do you agree or disagree with that hypothesis. If you disagree, what is your argument as to why it is better to learn the techniques than it is to apply them in a realistic environment?

Hello again,

In Kung Fu they also do sparring and some schools are more aggressive tan others. But the real aspect that creates results is techniques and when a person learns how to control their body movement. Strong stances are also important, and having the ability to move from stance to stance quickly.

The problem with alot of sport type fighting, or kick boxing, as far as I see it), The loose kick boxing sport type of fighting weakens form and stances and technique (as I see it). many people today just don't seem to have the time and patience to develop strong form and stances, so they try it for a while and then throw it all away and become kick boxers. Not that kick boxing doesn't have some benefits. But i believe in the long run, it would be more helpful to take the long road of stances and form and solid practiced techniques, than the quick road of sloppy form and sport fighting.

But truthfully, I think there are not many people who take this long road. or if they do they get discouraged and change to the quick route before they master the art.

[jubaji]

Those who haven't been to war are much easier to convince sports prepare them for war than those who've actually been to war. ...

What a bold post! Boy, all those folks who have been arguing that instead of giving soldiers weapons and equipment when they go to war they should only be trained in BJJ sure look foolish now!

Way to go.

[TTEscrima]

The soldier/Marine who created MAC is a former Marine Infantrymen as well as former Army Ranger who saw combat in both Operation Just Cause and in the Gulf War. He is also a black belt in BJJ and designed the program to incorporate sport tournaments based on BJJ and MMA.

Matt's also admitted the program is a failure.

He now teaches MAC to Army Special Forces. So, I'm not sure how far your argument really goes. Maybe clarify it a bit to explain the discrepancy.

NO SF unit has undergone MAC training in a number of years, it was formally replaced at the insistence of those running the schools with LINE and *gasp* TCMA's.

Were you in? When were you in and where what unit were you stationed at? (Note: I'm not doubting you were in, I'm just interested)

I did over 20 years, I'm retired, my last duty was in the box.

Matt Larsen (founder of MAC) said, "The winner of the hand-to-hand fight in combat is the one whose buddy shows up first with a gun."

Exactly my point, they no longer teach you to win/survive, they teach you to hope your friends come to save you. The idea that your friends will show up first is a joke, we don't always outnumber our opponents, nor do things always go as planned. The first rule is no plan survives contact with the enemy, that makes planning on your buddies saving your ass if you get in a fight unlikely, it also means your training is based on principles that require multiple American soldiers armed with firearms to subdue a single empty handed opponent on the battlefield. These concepts failed against an enemy we almost always outnumber and outgun, imagine if we faced an enemy like Iran or China or North Korea known for human wave attacks that far outnumber our forces, I think you'd discover quickly what a stupid premise the MAC system was based upon.

Imagine how badly SF who operate behind enemy lines are outnumbered, you think they wait on back up to win a H2H confrontation? What about escaped POW's or downed aircrews? They're supposed to roll around on the ground and hope friendly forces show up first too? Sometimes people don't think, they just swallow whatever line was fed to them as gospel, it makes them great cannon fodder.

[USArmyBJJ]

Whenever you see someone spouting the virtues of BJJ and MMA for soldiers you can bet they haven't made it out of MAC level 1 training much less attended SFCQC or seen combat or they'd know better.

The soldier/Marine who created MAC is a former Marine Infantrymen as well as former Army Ranger who saw combat in both Operation Just Cause and in the Gulf War. He is also a black belt in BJJ and designed the program to incorporate sport tournaments based on BJJ and MMA. He now teaches MAC to Army Special Forces. So, I'm not sure how far your argument really goes. Maybe clarify it a bit to explain the discrepancy.

Those who haven't been to war are much easier to convince sports prepare them for war than those who've actually been to war. I've never had a combat vet return home and ask for more sport orientated material before returning to the combat zone, but they always want more combatives and edge weapons training...

Were you in? When were you in and where what unit were you stationed at? (Note: I'm not doubting you were in, I'm just interested)

I certainly don't doubt that, in the war environment, it is better to be trained with, and have, a weapon. Matt Larsen (founder of MAC) said, "The winner of the hand-to-hand fight in combat is the one whose buddy shows up first with a gun."

I'm not sure your point really stands up, though. If you're arguing that having a weapon is better than knowing BJJ, I'd agree with you. But I don't think that's the debate really going on here.

[TTEscrima]

When he refers to military combatives, he is talking about what he read from Black Belt Magazine.

Ah yes such a fine publication.


Top Secret: How to Apply Elite Military Training Methods to Your Reality-Based Workouts


Written by a guy who had barely graduated boot camp. If you've never had the opportunity to read the article you should, the author demonstrates some techniques, chops to nerve clusters, chops to vital points, eyegouges and groin strikes, interesting read if you've ever discussed combatives VS sports for military application with him.

http://books.google.com/books?id=T9wDAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=black&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0_0#PPA88,M1

There's a letter from one of the Army's most legendary soldiers/H2H experts that responds to the article in post 50 here:

http://www.defend.net/deluxeforums/urban-street-combatives-r-b-m/25564-future-training-4.html

Whenever you see someone spouting the virtues of BJJ and MMA for soldiers you can bet they haven't made it out of MAC level 1 training much less attended SFCQC or seen combat or they'd know better. Those who haven't been to war are much easier to convince sports prepare them for war than those who've actually been to war. I've never had a combat vet return home and ask for more sport orientated material before returning to the combat zone, but they always want more combatives and edge weapons training...

[Ben Grimm]

Nobody's saying CMA doesn't have dangerous techniques. We're just saying that you can't apply them like you say you do. When he refers to military combatives, he is talking about what he read from Black Belt Magazine.

[USArmyBJJ]

This was not the point, the point was that there are very dangerous and effective techniques in Kung Fu.

I can't speak for others, but I've made it clear that I consider eye gouging to be an effective technique in certain circumstances. I never denied that it could be.

Rather, I was arguing against the teaching methodology. Specifically, what I said was, "...I do think that certain styles and certain training techniques are more likely to yield results more efficiently. My hypothesis is that sport martial arts are more likely to efficiently breed good fighters because each fighter consistently pressure-tests their techniques and thus, marries theory and application"

Do you agree or disagree with that hypothesis. If you disagree, what is your argument as to why it is better to learn the techniques than it is to apply them in a realistic environment?

Just as there are most likely these type of techniques in the military combat training.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say "military combat training," but I assume you're referring specifically to the hand-to-hand combat training. I can't speak to all military combatives because I don't have authority to do so, but I can say that MAC (Modern Army Combatives) mostly covers BJJ techniques. I'm only a MAC 1 though, so maybe the more advanced classes cover other techniques - although I've never heard of or seen anything resembling Kung Fu. Our tournaments operate on slightly modified BJJ rules and do not include anything like eye gouging or biting or whatever "deadly techniques" you are probably thinking of.


EDIT: According to Wikipedia, the more advanced MAC tournaments operate under MMA rules. However, as I said, I am at a lower level in MAC. Our tournaments follow modified BJJ rules.

I hope you're more mature now and aren't gouging out people's eyes over pool hall arguments. Do you consider the force you used to be excessive?

This was not the point, the point was that there are very dangerous and effective techniques in Kung Fu. Just as there are most likely these type of techniques in the military combat training.