MMA is Not Self Defense!

[migo]

So what's an option for someone who can't handle the intensity of training in MMA or wrestling? (going back to a comment on page 1 or 2). How do you prepare someone who doesn't have the physical attributes or mindset for MMA type training (full resistance, few constraints)?

It's interesting to think about. While it's nice knowing that any kind of fighting back gives you a good chance in XX% of assaults, the remaining 100-XX% are the ones to worry about. What do you do if you provide resistance and your attacker provides counter resistance and you can't train in an MMA fashion?

[Tant01]

Get armed......

[Knuckles&Knees]

I never said I didn't practice combat sports, I just said none of them are the same as the real thing. I've been hit in the ring and I've been seen combat and I assure you there is a world of difference in someone actually trying to kill you and your opponent in the ring "trying to tear your head off". Sorry I missed out on bouncing I was too busy as a Master-at-Arms in the Navy for the last 20 years.

I notice some very defensive attitudes about this subject whenever and wherever its broached people protest way too much whether they're MMA or TMA people.

I'm sure in those 20 years you've learned some things, given your MOS or I think the Navy calls is Rate.

The job of a bouncer, especially I'm told in England, is no joke. And I'm just going to say this flat out, by-in-large trained combat athletes are far more dangerous than any "average joe" on the street, in the military, or in Law Enforcement, when it comes to hand-to-hand. Now, that may not be so once you start putting knives or broken bottles into the picture. A boxer or Thai boxer or submission wrestler may find him or herself out of her element once one or more persons draws knives or straight razors.

Look, even in U.S. prisons boxers and trained fighters are respected. Basically boxing and MMA gyms are some of the best institutes we have today for turning out modern day gladiators.

And to be honest with you, sometimes I get irritated with this idea that some one has to break their legs or necks to improve as a fighter. In the U.S. military people put ear plugs in their ears so they don't go deaf and can keep their hearing for when they need it come combat time.

Not to mention people have died in the boxing ring. And had Sherman or Forrest ever met hand-to-hand without weapon, against one of today's Thai boxers or BJJ practitioners, it would be lights out for both those Civil War Generals.

Yeah, if I'd want to learn how to do night raids on horse back, then I'd defer to Forrest. I'm not deferring to that chap (to borrow British slang) to learn how to throw with proper distance in my jab.

I don't post to often on the board, but every now and then I come around and browse. Not so long ago I was browsing and saw a video clip Michael Wright had put up of himself (if I remember it might have been with the Minnesota group?). I was very impressed with what I saw in both his hands and feet on focus pads (if I remember correctly). I feel confident in saying he would defeat most of the best street fighters on the "tough streets of the U.S."

I'm a U.S. citizen by the way, born and bred.

(I'm not trying to come down on you either, but I wanted to make a response because I think you unjustly, into much haste, jumped the gun on Michael W.)


Peace.

[Tant01]

Few things are more fear inspiring than a well trained adversary.

Seems there was a recent "attack" in the US involving hand grenades? Grenades don't really care if you're an athlete...MMA or ballet...

We are all "soft" targets.

[jwf89]

iv'e met a couple self defense fanatics before and they said practical ground fighting prventing takedowns in a practical way and striking in full contact sparring is essential to self defense even and by the way there's alot of mma schools that teach self defense

[TTEscrima]

A few quotes from Matt Larsen.

"I wrote the FM, I was one of the guys who developed the program in the Ranger Regiment, I was NCOIC of combatives for the Ranger Regt. And then the Ranger Training Brigade and now I am the NCOIC of the Army combatives school and of all combatives training for the infantry school.

I mentioned this before that when we began the research for this program, we did some experimentation.
One of the things we did was take a 100 man RIP class and divided it in half. Half received ten hours of boxing instruction, the other half did PT. After the instruction, we had boxing matches between those with the training and those without. Strangely enough those who received no training won more fights. We did this three times with different amounts of training and different boxing instructors with the same results. Our conclusion was that from the perspective of actual fighting ability small amounts of boxing training is actually counter productive.

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.

That is where BJJ comes in. Soldiers begin their learning with the basic ground grappling from BJJ, not because that is how we envision them fighting, or because many fights go to the ground (that is another discussion), but because it is easy both to teach and to learn.

It is also true that to win a fight you must have a strategy. The strategy of almost anyone that you are likely to fight is to pummel you with strikes until you are incapacitated. Perhaps adopting that same plan is not the best way.
’ll talk about our training plan in my next letter."

Matt Larsen

[Tom Yum]

I don't mean to get off topic....

I talk to a lot of folks going for the same job I'm going to - some say that they are not sure how they will react if in a scenario where they would have to kill someone at close quarters, others brag about how they can do it without blinking an eye.

99% of these guys haven't been in a job where they've had to - the 1% who did tended to say that doing it is not a scenario they would brag about one bit or could predict how they were going to react before and after it happened.

That being said - how do reality-based fighters know how they will react if they aren't drilled in spontaneous, resistance that MMA/boxers/muaythai fighters go through?

Unless of course, they go out and get in street fights on a regular basis (i.e. Paul Vunak or Bas Rutten).

[TTEscrima]

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:



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.

I don't know how you figure I took that out of context, here's the entire letter.

"First, when you say they you mean me. I wrote the FM, I was one of the guys who developed the program in the Ranger Regiment, I was NCOIC of combatives for the Ranger Regt. And then the Ranger Training Brigade and now I am the NCOIC of the Army combatives school and of all combatives training for the infantry school.

I have been in the infantry in both the Army and the Marine Corps for the last eighteen years and the truth is that until recently there was almost no combatives training happening. What little there was, was almost universally thought of as a joke and a waste of time. It is hard for the “combatives” crowd to admit but it is the truth. The big question is why. Why did both soldiers and commanders think that combatives training was a waste of time.

In my opinion it is because the Army has been trying for the last sixty years to implement the very things you are advocating. You said that you were in the infantry. I assume you were an advocate of combatives training while you were in. Why then did the system that you are advocating not spread throughout the Army from your platoon or company the way the current system spread from the third platoon charley company 2/75th?

I don’t want you to take that the wrong way, I am sure that we agree on what soldiers need to know. Knowing what they need to know is the easy part. Its how do you actualy get them to know it that is hard. How do you motivate that pencil neck commander/squad leader to get his men training? That is the real question.

That is also where the systems of the past have failed. 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.

If you look at the way marksmanship is taught as an analogy, combat marksmanship is a very difficult and complicated task. You are fatigued and breathing hard, firing from unusual positions or while moving. Your targets are fleeting and hard to identify, not to mention NODS, optics etc.

Now all of that being true, no one question the need for BRM. Even though it bears little resemblance to the sort of shooting that we expect of our soldiers on the battlefield.

This is not so with combatives. The training methods that have been used with combatives is much like teaching shooting at the soldier of fortune convention. You put a guy down behind a machine gun. He squeezes of a few rounds. Its cool. He walks away motivated. He may even have a good feeling about the training, but at the end of the day, no one showed him about site alignment. Is he a better shooter, marginally if at all.

Now you take that same man and show him how to strike with the ridge of his hand, tell him to grab their nuts, stomp them with his heel. He is motivated. He may have a good feeling about the training, but is he actually a better fighter? Or when the actual fight happens is he going to resort back to his natural farm boy technique? We have done quite a bit of experimentation to prove the latter.

That is where BJJ comes in. Soldiers begin their learning with the basic ground grappling from BJJ, not because that is how we envision them fighting, or because many fights go to the ground (that is another discussion), but because it is easy both to teach and to learn. It is also true that ground fighting is not too dissimilar from standup fighting, and the lessons learned there make it easier to teach further techniques.

I mentioned this before that when we began the research for this program, we did some experimentation.
One of the things we did was take a 100 man RIP class and divided it in half. Half received ten hours of boxing instruction, the other half did PT. After the instruction, we had boxing matches between those with the training and those without. Strangely enough those who received no training won more fights. We did this three times with different amounts of training and different boxing instructors with the same results. Our conclusion was that from the perspective of actual fighting ability small amounts of boxing training is actually counter productive.

It is also true that to win a fight you must have a strategy. The strategy of almost anyone that you are likely to fight is to pummel you with strikes until you are incapacitated. Perhaps adopting that same plan is not the best way. I’ll talk about our training plan in my next letter.

Matt Larsen"


I wasn't gunning for Matt or I'd have ripped all the info he perpetuated in order to get his system accepted. I left out his slams of combatives because they were off subject for this forum and he was made a fool of by people for those comments very shortly after making them. I posted the relevant portions to the discussion at hand that pertained to training, but if you want to discuss the comments he made belittling Rex Applegate, W.E Fairbarn and WWII combatives and the men who used and founded them I'd be delighted to participate in that discussion as well.

Matt began bad mouthing combatives after the official solicitation from US Army SOCOM Ft Bragg for instruction and instructional materials for CQC training specifying the USMC Line system in support of the Special Forces Qualification Course was leaked making LINE the official training SF wide (not group specific). The solicitation number is ZA92-02-Q-0024. This was a change from Matts program. Here's the quote from the Sol. "Most recently during fiscal years 01 and 02 LINES training has become the standard training incorporated into the Special Forces Qualification Course." After this was leaked at SOC.net where Matt and his FM were already getting ripped to shreds by current operators he wrote that letter. It only went downhill from there when he began insulting Fairbairn, Applegate & Sykes combat records and credentials.

It's interesting how little details are there if you just know where to look, who is the man tasked with training the instructors for the Army Q course? Ron Donvito, who the hell is Ron Donvito you might ask, he's the man who invented the LINE system formerly used by the Marine Corps. So while details of the program are still classified the background of the man training the instructors isn't and it's WWII combatives.

[Knuckles&Knees]

I mentioned this before that when we began the research for this program, we did some experimentation.
One of the things we did was take a 100 man RIP class and divided it in half. Half received ten hours of boxing instruction, the other half did PT. After the instruction, we had boxing matches between those with the training and those without. Strangely enough those who received no training won more fights. We did this three times with different amounts of training and different boxing instructors with the same results. Our conclusion was that from the perspective of actual fighting ability small amounts of boxing training is actually counter productive.

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, and I'm pretty much jumping to the last page, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding the context in which you put this quote excerpt up as a reply (to who on the board I'm not sure).

Anyways... the body mechanics, that is the trained body mechanics of boxing are such that I know of no one that can utilize the boxing fighting style with only 10 hours of training. It can take some people several months before they can even step in with a proper jab. And that's just a simple basic move. But people moving forward and backward with while throwing a jab, when they are just learning to do it, and while they are practicing it, look like they are half-way mentally challenged.

If you've got no skill or coordination in kicking, I would not suggest trying to use Thai kicks when you have only 10 hours of training either.

In fact I can't even believe someone would waist money (per time/payroll) studying this sh*t, the Army could have asked me (I have no authority whatsoever - just making a point) and I would have told them for free.

[TTEscrima]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, and I'm pretty much jumping to the last page, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding the context in which you put this quote excerpt up as a reply (to who on the board I'm not sure).

Anyways... the body mechanics, that is the trained body mechanics of boxing are such that I know of no one that can utilize the boxing fighting style with only 10 hours of training. It can take some people several months before they can even step in with a proper jab. And that's just a simple basic move. But people moving forward and backward with while throwing a jab, when they are just learning to do it, and while they are practicing it, look like they are half-way mentally challenged.

If you've got no skill or coordination in kicking, I would not suggest trying to use Thai kicks when you have only 10 hours of training either.

In fact I can't even believe someone would waist money (per time/payroll) studying this sh*t, the Army could have asked me (I have no authority whatsoever - just making a point) and I would have told them for free.

Isn't it comforting to see the thought process of the man responsible for using MMA to train soldiers though? When they already know what they want it's fun to watch people rationalize their way to the outcome they desire.

[TTEscrima]

Unfortunately, there was a great deal more to it than even that.

Also, this time fortunately, given the mission a lot of our guys are facing (in which bad guys are either shot during battles of apprehended and processed), the hands on restrain and control types of tactics seem to be working. I still get reports from Iraq in which people are having to use MACP training on combative civilians and prisoners from time to time. I'm personally glad to see that they have some options other than a butt stroke or a couple of warning shots fired at center mass to get the locals under control when the situation arises.

As a MAA I spent the majority of my time hands on, no one ever expected us to try and use any of the BJJ concepts to control people who could have anything from a knife to a bomb concealed under their clothing. "Knives are more common than shoes here" was a gem everyone was reminded of on a regular basis. War is ugly and the truth is people get hurt, we were often expected to round up people for questioning who might be innocent, and since your innocence is determined by things like waterboarding even innocent people tend to resist, thats why the BJJ format was pushed to allow the detention and questioning of civilians, however experience shows everyone fights when they're going to be tortured. Overwhelming force and a few swift kicks are still the only effective to control people in a war zone and even that control is only temporary.

[migo]

Mike, thanks for the response. I liked your breakdown. I figured it was on topic with the OP, as it was looking at the question from the point of view of, "what is self defense?" rather than, "what is MMA?"

The point you brought up about treachery and ruthlessness combined with trainging and conditioning being better than one or the other might also be addressing part of where the debate comes from. MMA type training is a very important piece of self-defense (or maybe not, I haven't been in any fights since training MMA), but situational awareness, swallowing ego, and picking the right time to be nasty (or not nasty, as there's retaliation to consider) is also a very important piece of self defense. If you have one or the other, it's not too hard to think up a scenario in which you won't succesfully defend yourself, but when you combine the two it gives you a much narrower selection of scenarios in which you won't be able to defend yourself.

I'd venture a guess that when people are arguing that MMA is good for self defense they place greater valre on the aspects MMA obviously prepares you for. If they argue MMA isn't good for self defense, they're placing greater emphasis on the aspects that MMA doesn't obviously prepare you for (or they're failing to recognize some of the benefits of MMA training, possibly on account of looking at it from the context of their TMA training, which these days can quite likely be much more technique oriented while MMA comparatively places much more emphasis on attributes).

[TTEscrima]

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.

[TTEscrima]

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."

[TTEscrima]

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?