Military H2H Techniques and history

[BoarSpear]

...........................

[gong fu]

yeah there some good methods. i like them, very simular to shaolin as a whole with the clawing, throat grabbing, avoiding complex throws, ruthless no rules, also elements of JKD with the low kicks and stomps on the feet, elements of other styles aswell,


i liked it. practical for realistic battle, i would incorperate more than that myself and change it around, but its not bad,



peace,

[BoarSpear]

Y..................

[BoarSpear]

Check out the intro to "all in fighting"

..................

[BoarSpear]

This is probably gonna be a long download, but if you havent seen the Modern Army combatives Program (MACP) level 1 instruction here it is...i would suggest downloading it.

[BoarSpear]

Hmmm since Im the only one on line....might as well post more stuff

Hope i aint boring you to death

i thought you might find this interesting though...
..................................................................................................

[Thai Bri]

I think that WW2 methods may be a little over rated. Don't get me wrong, I do train them and incorporate them into my own work. But there is a lot of closed minded support of them. It is not uncommon for people to say "they are the best methods ever" and "they are all you will ever need" etc. etc., and many have been ostracised merely for pointing out the value in other methods. Here are a few points:

Yes, they were designed to train men to become effective fighters in a very short time. The techniques chosen give a great bang for the buck, being quickly taught yet still brutal. But, consider this, would the WW2 Combative greats have taught other things if they'd had much more time with the soldiers? I think that they restricted their techniques BECAUSE they hadn't got this time. If they had, they would have produced a different package. Since we have that time ourselves, it means that we should look outside WW2 Combatives in my view. Another Combative great, Kelly McCann, agrees. He looks at developing Combatives, not claiming that the old timers were so good that their stuff cannot be improved upon.

Non telegraphic strikes? Which ones? I think the term "non telegraphic" is over used massively, in WW2 Combatives and other arts. I have many tapes of people demonstrating their non telegraphic blows. Guess what? They are, to varying degrees, telegraphic. The art, to me, lies in disguising the telegraphy, not in eliminating it. Using distractionary or deceptive movement is beter than trying to strike without any movement, if you know what I mean.

And, in any case, was their really this emphasis on being non telegraphic when training Commandos? Weren't they already fighting if and when unarmed methods were used? Or were they standing in conversation with their Nazi counterpart prior to chopping them in the throat......

The instructors would pick out the biggest student and demonstrate on him first. This was to demonstrate the effectiveness of the material. But what relevance was this? Did the student really try to kill the trainer and, even if he did, the trainers would already be experts at other arts in any case. So their results were not a true reflection of pure WW2 Combatives anyway.

What uses were there of this system? I haven't yet found any reliable documented incidents of these methods "working" in the war. I'm not saying that they are not there, and would genuinely appreciate it if you could show me some. Yes, I know a chop to the throat or a hard chin jab would work..... but where are the real life examples?

What about the nations that designed their own systems for WW2 (or for any war for that matter). It seems to me that the WW2 Combatives crowd will only recognise methods from the Allies, and that methods from other regions (Pacific islands etc) just don't count. If it ain't Fairbairn et al, then it don't count. Now that's a bit arrogant.

Look at the issue of proportinality. Many WW2 stuff stresses the "kill kill kill!" mindset. Now that may well be appropriate for war, but it is not for the street Try to tell many in the WW2 crowd that they should aim to be more proportinate in their response and they say "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6". Maybe so, but it is better still to be neither.


There, I'm not pulling your pisser, Bore boy, and will look forward to your response (and anyones).

[Makkhatter]

I was really pissed when they first got rid of line training for the MCMAP. Didn't like the idea of teaching us to be less lethal. I was a line instructor before I left the corps, and transferred to the Army. Now that the programs been around for a while, it's a good thing - it's put together and taught more frequently than line training was.

[BoarSpear]

I was really pissed when they first got rid of line training for the MCMAP. Didn't like the idea of teaching us to be less lethal. I was a line instructor before I left the corps, and transferred to the Army. Now that the programs been around for a while, it's a good thing - it's put together and taught more frequently than line training was.

I have to agree, at least they work on the new programs more often! I would still like to have seen the LINE concepts retained and taught as a supplement to the new system.

[BoarSpear]

.......................

[Thai Bri]

Lighten up dick brain. It is impossible to have a rational discussion about a system if youre going to take it personally.

Try again, but take any reference to yourself out of the equation. i'm talking about WW2 combatives - not you.

[BoarSpear]

Lighten up dick brain. It is impossible to have a rational discussion about a system if youre going to take it personally.

Try again, but take any reference to yourself out of the equation. i'm talking about WW2 combatives - not you.

You ATTACKED the system, and the people who teach it...as i explained WW2 combatives arent the spin Fairbairn added came from TMA's from Japan and China...Before that the techniques were from WW1 trench fighting. We can go all the way back to medieval manuals on wrestling and fencing and find the same arm locks and wrist locks of today.

what art doesnt suffer from EVERY one of the things you said about WW2 combatives?

you call me "dick brain" then say we cant have a rational discussion if im gonna take things personally?

if you insist on acting like an ass I will ignore you, if you want to discuss something that doesnt include personal attacks let me know.

I know insulting each other is our pastime but this doesnt have to be a flame contest unless the info i was posting makes you uncomfortable. Was something i said inaccurate? or is it just not what you wanted people to read?

[BoarSpear]

.........................

[gregimotis]

He didn't attack the system, he critiqued it - and from a civilian LEO standpoint at that. C'mon boar, give a guy a break

[BoarSpear]

He didn't attack the system, he critiqued it - and from a civilian LEO standpoint at that. C'mon boar, give a guy a break

................................................................. oh that was a critique I see.............Departing.