military combat!!

[Guest]

Matt, there will always be Naysayers, as you so rightly point out.

I don't think you answered Ryan's 6 points at all. Yes, you had a comment to make but, for me, they weren't rebuffed. You drew the analogy between boxing and the needs of military boxing. When you then proceed comment on the inadequacy of boxing in this area, you are contradicting yourself.

I don't see any point going through them all in detail though. People can agree to disagree.

All I can put is my view in its simplicity.

If the objective is to teach people how to survive a physical encounter when unarmed, teach brutal and basic strikes. Strikes that require minimal training (though make people train anyway, to hone their skills even more) and do most damage. Grappling is merely a support system.

By the way. Thai Boxers used to kill each other before they adopted the gloves.

[ryanhall]

easier said than done

--In reference to hitting the right places.

Agreed, but it's not that hard if you hammer away hard and fast. You don't have to get the windpipe itself, as a hard shot to the neck area will do damage to most everyone (minus people with very well-muscled necks--wrestlers). The knee really isn't that difficult to hit hard, nor is the facial mass. If you were able to clinch and knee someone hard in the face, you could easily break their neck.

I havn’t yet heard how an uppercut will be more likely to land for example if thrown by someone with very little training but an open hand

It's not more likely to land if you stay and throw it like a punch. Stepping into the opponent makes it work a little better. Your point here is well taken, but your soldiers won't be going up against someone in a sparring match. It is bam, bam, bam, done. The use of the heel of the hand is superior because it transmits power easier and it allows for an immediate eye gouge, not because it is easier to land. Ease only comes from practice. The body mechanic, however, makes this shot a little easier, as you are going into the opponent. When I started out boxing, I had a tendency to come up short on my uppercuts (brush the chin) or only connect with part of the glove. This would not be a problem if my hand was facing the other way.

Weight classes protect the little guy

This is correct. However, the more open a match is, the less size matters. All things being equal, the big guy will win a vast majority of the time, especially if it's a set match. With surprise and aggression (things your soldiers should have), you can overcome size. If I have to slug it out with someone twice my size, I have a poor chance of coming out on the winning side. If I can stomp his knee, hit him in the chin, and double eye gouge him, size won't help him all that much--provided that I keep the offensive initiative the entire time.

Gloves are to protect the hand

They do a good job of it too. Old school boxers didn't used to punch to the face nearly as much, and they didn't use the horizontal fist positioning either. Gloves fixed these problems. That said, gloves also protect the person being hit. If you can hook your thumb into the eye on a jab, you will do more damage. Gloves protect the hand for fisted blows. If boxers didn't punch, gloves wouldn't be used. Thai addopted gloves to protect the fighters, not their hands. There used to be all sorts of eye strikes and cheap shots thrown around.

If you have not trained against a fully resistant opponent, you have no idea whether or not you will be able to do the things you think you can.

I train against fully resistant opponents on a very frequent basis.

As for groin shots, I once kicked a sailor square in the junk when I was a Marine. He punched me in the face.

Sorry your face, Matt. Sorry for the other guy, too, as he's probably sterile whether he felt it not. I respect your point of view on this, but that guy was the exception, not the rule. Most people would not just stand there and slug you back. As an addendum, I find that the groin can be an overrated target area, as it can take many seconds for a hard shot to be felt. That leaves a lot of time for the guy you hit to counter--as you saw.

Refusing to draw any lessons from MMA because of its limitations as a test bed is probably not the best answer. Better to look at its limitations and learn what it has to offer.

I agree here, but I don't find many, if any parallels between a controlled environment of unarmed combat and the battlefield. I feel that MMA has a lot more to do with self-defense for civilians than it does with military combat.

The person that gets stopped in their tracks is just as likely to be either one of the two who are slugging it out

If you hit first, fast, hard, and repeatedly, you are very likely going to be the one who comes out of the engagement in one piece.

We should train to fight in groups for the same reason that we train to fight with weapons, it works better.

No argument here. Despite what some people may have heard from their karate teachers, weapons are always superior to empty hands.

[M Larsen]

It is quite apparent that both of you are fully indoctrinated in Fairbairn/Applegate orthodoxy.

Here is a good quote about the Fairbairn system.

From the book “It Had To Be Tough” The fascinating story of the origins of the commandos and their special training in WWII by James Dunning, an original member of No. 4 Commando who maid raids in Norway and France and who was latter a Commando instructor.

“ (Hand-to-hand training) started with a summary of the vulnerable points including, quite naturally, the ‘goollies’. How to deliver disabling blows followed, then attacks on sentries, breaking free from holds, how to break falls, throws, the use of the knife and other makeshift weapons plus defence against such attacks and so on… It was a very ‘professional’ and stimulating demonstration that had the trainees raring to ‘have a go.’”

The goal during all of this, “confidence rather than proficiency”

That is the legacy of sixty years of this type of training, confidence rather than proficiency.

Matt Larsen

[ryanhall]

It is quite apparent that both of you are fully indoctrinated in Fairbairn/Applegate orthodoxy.

Well, I don't consider myself to be indoctrinated into any kind of orthodoxy. I study boxing and Contemporary Fightin Arts ("reality" based self-defesnse). I have an active interest in Muay Thai, BJJ, World War II Combatives, and Senshido (also RBSD). I have also studied and competed in Judo and Wrestling. I'm not that old, but I have my fair share of experience in a decent variety of martial arts disciplines.

The goal during all of this, “confidence rather than proficiency”

By far, the largest part of any real world physical confrontation is attitude and mental preparation. The physical tools do not take long to learn. As I understand it (and I could be mistaken), the entire idea behind Fairbairn's 'gutterfighting' was to create soldiers who had a very offensive mentality. These soldiers were highly motivated, and they were taught the basics of how to hurt someone. They didn't need a martial arts program or two years before they could be dangerous close quarters opponents. Give a person with a "screw you, I'm going home and there's nothing you can do to stop me" mentality a few basic and nasty strikes, and you have someone who's going to kick some ass. Give someone who doesn't want to hurt anybody because they don't have the right to harm another human being the same tools, and you have a deadman. Mentality and psychological preparation are paramount for real world and battlefield survival. Everything else is just icing on the cake. The less technique and plan of action that a soldier has to focus on, the more his mindset will take over.

www.senshido.com --Could be considered a little like Tony Blauer, but much, much better.

[ryanhall]

That is the legacy of sixty years of this type of training, confidence rather than proficiency.

Matt,
The fact that you are resorting to posting pseudo-disparaging remarks about another system instead of replying intelligently to points made and questions raised about your own doesn't speak well for you.

[M Larsen]

Alright, I will use some historical facts.

The Fairbairn/Applegate system died in the military. Of the thousands of men trained in the system, there were not enough believers in it to make it survive the demobilization. Although you may chose to believe otherwise, there must be a reason for this. Conspiracy theories aside, can you name another valuable training activity that did not survive? The truth is they kept the good stuff and, having been convinced that combatives training was mostly valuable as a motivator, consigned it to basic training where no one had any expectation that soldiers would learn anything useful.

When we evaluated the combative systems of Armies around the world, the two things we looked at before we even began to look at the effectiveness of the techniques was whether or not the average soldier new what the proponents of the system said they should know, and whether or not they produced their own experts.

So was there ever a time when the average soldier knew the Fairbairn/ Applegate system? I think that anyone who had a grandfather in the Army during WWII can answer that one for you.

Did we produce our own experts? Make a list of the WWII era Combatives experts that we know by name. How many of them received all of their training from the Army? Fairbairn…Judo, Oniel…Judo, De Rewelyskow…Freestyle wrestling, etc. The only one who seems to have learned most of what he taught from the Army was Applegate and he was a great big man who could get away with allot less technique than the average soldier.

I had a soldier in my last instructor course that was a sandan in Judo. 15 years in the Army, former Ranger Instructor currently the head Combatives instructor at the sapper leader course, He would probably have been considered a God during WWII.

It is strictly a training theory whether it is better to train primarily on strikes and aggressive attitude, or to build fighting abilities from the ground up. One that we have explored and experimented with in every way we can and continue to test even in combat.

In 89 C Co 3/75 was clearing the Omar Torrihos International Airport terminal when a squad leader was shot while entering a room. After they dragged him out of the door, the other members of the squad fragged the room and then came in shooting. Unfortunately it was a latrine and the frag went under one of the commode stalls so the bad guys were unhurt. Even more unfortunately the number one man entering the room was carrying an M249 which, being an open bolt weapon, naturally jammed. He was two feet from the bad guy who grabbed him and they fell to the floor. What do you suppose was the deciding factor in the fight? Ranger number two of course who shot BG #2 and then put his muzzle against BG #1 and blew his guts out. Of course this is only an anecdote but it is a theme that we are seeing played out again and again whether or not the soldier involved have been trained in Combatives.

We can actually document the successes of our program with battlefield experience, and that is the bottom line.

Matt Larsen

[ryanhall]

We can actually document the successes of our program with battlefield experience, and that is the bottom line.

Of course, that it the most important thing. I do not doubt you in the least, but my only question is if the soldiers actually take out the enemy on their own, or if they need an assist from a friendly? There's nothing wrong with group fighting--it's much more effective than single combat--but I did point out before that the ground lacks finishing techniques.

Conspiracy theories aside, can you name another valuable training activity that did not survive?

I cannot. I don't think that the Fairbairn method is an effective peacetime training method, because it lacks the competitive element. In addition, there is no personal growth aspect involved (a concept that the military is very big on these days).

So was there ever a time when the average soldier knew the Fairbairn/ Applegate system?

There was not a time when the average soldier was acquainted with the Fairbairn/Applegate methods. That said, they were largely for commando units, not average soldiers.

Fairbairn…Judo, Oniel…Judo, De Rewelyskow…Freestyle wrestling, etc. The only one who seems to have learned most of what he taught from the Army was Applegate and he was a great big man who could get away with allot less technique than the average soldier.

Don't you find it interesting that, even though these men were very well-versed in grappling arts, that they chose to base their methods on power striking (what the littlest guy can do to the biggest)? I do. Applegate has a very interesting discussion on this in his book, Kill or Get Killed (take a look at www.gutterfighting.org --you'll find it there). I believe that they thought that the average American citizen or soldier had neither the time nor the inclination to learn a very detailed art such as Judo--an art that has undergone tremendous changes since the WW II era.

It is strictly a training theory whether it is better to train primarily on strikes and aggressive attitude, or to build fighting abilities from the ground up.

I would favor a combination of the two methods.

Of course this is only an anecdote but it is a theme that we are seeing played out again and again whether or not the soldier involved have been trained in Combatives.

We finally come to the best argument in favor of grappling training: weapon retention. A a soldier who trains with and carries a weapon into battle, will have a very natural and very correct tendency to want to hold onto his weapon. Carrying a large firearm is not conducive to striking--it's too cumbersome. As a result of all this, the soldier will have a tendency to hold onto his weapon and lock up with the bad guy rather than go in striking full force. Unless a soldier goes through many scenarios and replicated battle situations in training in which his weapon malfunctions and he has to knock his attackers away long enough to escape (he has no backup or minimal backup), he will not strike when the pressure is on. This would be my argument in favor of grappling. I would not base it on bare effectiveness or practicality, but on natural response to threatening situations while carrying a weapon.

Just a thought. What do you think? This may have reveresed my position on the argument a little bit.

[M Larsen]

I think your point about the weapon is true. I gat asked allot during the basic course why you wouldn’t just shove your muzzle into the BGs face. I always answer “”You would, now you are getting it.” We actual have had several kills from muzzle strikes to the head of the BG and one that actually penetrated the BGs chest, although that was not immediately fatal. Also of note is that Thai style elbow strikes work very well without moving your hands on the weapon.

“but my only question is if the soldiers actually take out the enemy on their own, or if they need an assist from a friendly? There's nothing wrong with group fighting--it's much more effective than single combat--but I did point out before that the ground lacks finishing techniques.”

I would say what difference does it make, As long as the good guys win. I think however that saying the ground lacks finishing techniques is just plain wrong. The full mount is one of the best positions in ground fighting and elbow smashes to the head and neck for instance are much easier to land effectively than when standing simply because the ground limits the enemy’s ability to avoid them.

“they were largely for commando units, not average soldiers”

Our program grew from the “commando” units and is expanding into the regular Army. Other than a year as a LRS team leader, this is the first job outside of Rangering that I have had since I left the Marines in 88.

“I cannot. I don't think that the Fairbairn method is an effective peacetime training method, because it lacks the competitive element. In addition, there is no personal growth aspect involved (a concept that the military is very big on these days).”

I think it lacks allot more than just a competitive element. It was designed for short duration training and was never really thought out past that. A successful system must not only provide simple techniques. It must lay a foundation for higher level training, be flexible enough to fit the various situations and ROE that soldiers find themselves in. It must provide opportunities for motivated soldiers to excel and at the same time hold the average soldier accountable for actual measurable fighting ability. It must be self supporting, training subsequent generations without relying on outside sources. It must be innovative. The realities of the battlefield are changing and the demands that we place on our soldiers are becoming increasingly more sophisticated. It must do all of this and more. That is why a selection of easily learned, effective techniques is not enough.

Matt Larsen

[Guest]

I don't consider myself "indoctrinated" either. I've trained for over 20 years in a selection of martial arts. And I've done it for real as a police officer on the inner city areas in and around Manchester.

My view is still that taking a small selection of brutal yet easy to learn strikes IS the best way forwards.

The problem with documenting the successes of your methodolgy is that you won't even think of documenting your failures. Men die in real combat, but no one says "he acted as per his training, but it didn't work".

You are doing so much more than that ridiculous LINE system though. So thats a relief.

[Kingston]

Originally posted by Bri Thai
Men die in real combat, but no one says "he acted as per his training, but it didn't work".

If the training failed, I think the millitary would look into it......how the hell do they find out what works or not in the first place?(more like how do they find out what to drop from training)

I think the millitary would care MORE about the aspects of their training that failed, oposed to the parts that went how they are supposed to.

whats the reason that a millitary strategy is droped, why dont we still line up our soldiers and shoot in a strate line to the other row on enemy soldiers? Because either technology, or tactics proved to be superior to it. How do we originaly find this out? By it failing in combat!

anyway i just think that comment is a stretch......just my opinion though.

[ryanhall]

Kingston,
Dead men don't tell tales. You don't really have the opportunity for a dead soldier to give a run down of what happened and how things went wrong. It's not easy to document failure (if failure is death) on a man-to-man basis.

I think the most important point that was made in the past few posts is the idea that training has to have a wide scope so that it is useful for all soldiers. Simple strikes are the best way to train someone to hurt someone else in a short time. However, they are not particularly helpful for subduing or controlling an aggressive person without causing them undue harm. If I had a small group whose job was to go in, kill the enemy or sabotage something, and escape as soon as possible I would train soldiers in simple strikes and killer instinct. Perhaps some positional groundfighting to allow them to access a weapon quickly on the deck. That's it. No need for advanced skills or drawn out training. The same simple stuff works anyways.

If I had to train a soldier to do more than just kill someone with his hands in the quickest way possible, then I would have to stray from simple strike training--as Matt is doing. That said, I still don't understand the desire for 'advanced skills.' They're not that necessary, as simple stuff works better in the first place. Train the basics hard and offen, and you will be able to hold your own.

It must be self supporting, training subsequent generations without relying on outside sources.

Matt,
I understand the desire to keep your training in-house, but let's be serious. The best hand to hand combat instructors have been civilians for a long time, and it's likely that they will always be civilians. Civies just have more time for this kind of stuff. As I'm sure you know, individual units contract outside the armed forces to civilians all the time (that's why so many people claim to have trained Special Forces--even if it was just one soldier who stepped into their school). Ever hear of Duane Dieter? He's the current SEAL trainer, and they are very satisifed with him.

[ryanhall]

Re-posted:

Don't you find it interesting that, even though these men were very well-versed in grappling arts, that they chose to base their methods on power striking (what the littlest guy can do to the biggest)?

This has been a good discussion. Let's keep it going.

[PBR549]

Im heading out to the field for about 10 days so please do keep this going. Matt is way better at talking about Army Combatives than I am.

[M Larsen]

“The best hand to hand combat instructors have been civilians for a long time, and it's likely that they will always be civilians.”

Why do you think that civilian hobbyist become more proficient hand-to-hand combat instructors than professional fighting men? I am not sure that I buy that an accountant has more time to dedicate to CQB than someone who may actually be called on to use his skills. I think its because the Army has never had a plan to develop it’s own experts. We do a pretty good job of developing experts in any field that we value. Sniping, Demo, parachuting, you name it some of the top guys in the world in any number of fields the Army produces experts.

My clerk is an E-4 named Damian Stelly. He is the current FIAS world SOMBO champion, AAU national freestyle and Greco champion and will probably be the world BJJ champion and he learned it all from the Army. All of that and a Ranger combat veteran and he is only an E-4. Imagine when he is an E-7.

Matt Larsen

[ryanhall]

Why do you think that civilian hobbyist become more proficient hand-to-hand combat instructors than professional fighting men?

I didn't say hobbyist. I said civilian for a reason. There are many professional civilian CQC instructors, some good, some excellent, some not so good. Professional sport fighters are all civilians. Civilians and police officers are called on to use their hand to hand combat skills much more often than most soldiers. That's why I hold this view.

I think its because the Army has never had a plan to develop it’s own experts

I buy this, but where do you think the Army learns its techniques and methodologies from? They're not conceived in-house. They are created and developed by civilains--civilians that devote huge amounts of time to their combat studies (i.e. not recreational martial artists).

We do a pretty good job of developing experts in any field that we value. Sniping, Demo, parachuting, you name it some of the top guys in the world in any number of fields the Army produces experts

I agree with this. Still the Army is not going to be the #1 place to look for unarmed combat for the simple reason that modern military personnel do not make use of hand to hand combat very often. It's like saying that the Brazilians will have some of the world's best snipers because they are great unarmed combatants and shooting also has to do with combat.

My clerk is an E-4 named Damian Stelly. He is the current FIAS world SOMBO champion, AAU national freestyle and Greco champion and will probably be the world BJJ champion and he learned it all from the Army

That is extremely impressive. I am not attempting to diminish his considerable accomplishments in any way, but I wonder who he has fought. I run into boxers who have been 'world kickboxing champions' every now and then, yet I know they have not fought in Thailand or someone near the K-1 calibur. The fact that he is so successful does speak well for your training, but keep in mind that these are all closely related grappling arts (training that the Army specializes in). It doesn't have anything to do with battlefield prowess--the subject at hand.

Also, you still haven't answered my question about the grapplers preferring to teach strikes.