US-Army Combatives (And a great intro to groundfighting for those unfamiliar)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1462151077277855734&q=martial+arts

In the future if anyone tells you that their instructor trainned people in the army you may laugh at them as this programs been around for over 10 years now I think

(Oh, b.t.w when I said this is a great intro to groundfighting I meant in terms of a video, I don't mean you can learn to fight on the ground by watching the video)

 

I don't see the point in learning groundfighting if you're in the Army. There's no rules in war, you could just rip the other bloke's testicles off, claw his aesophogus or gouge his eyes instead of rolling around on the floor like a bunch of sweaty guys in rash guards.

 

Your nutriding makes me feel less worried about my own

 

I don't ride nuts, I just get ****ed off with certain attitudes.

 

Cruise Missiles are vastly overrated as they've never been pressure tested in the cage, the Gracies would submit a cruise missile in the first round.

Edit: sorry I read Taffs post and thought I was in "th3 d3dli3st martial art" thread.

 

But MMM proved it could be done, I think he watched that very video before beating the Gracies.

 

The "point" of groundfighting for the military is actually several "points" that all make a lot of sense when you stop to think about them.
1) Soliders wear 40lbs of gear and body armor. It's like being a ninja turtle. Cool-guy TKD kicks just aren't going to happen. If and when they get into close combat, the fight is very likely to go to the ground. Remember, if you didn't shoot the guy right off the bat, it's probably because you want him alive so you have to take him down and restrain him.
2) Jiu-Jitsu is an art that teaches strategy in addition to technique. This strategy gives every soldier a goal in a fight of obtaining and maintaining a dominant position.
3) Jiu-Jitsu is relatively easy to learn, effective, and can be practiced against fully resisting opponents in training. This gives soldiers a skill set they are confident in because they know it works.
4) The groundfighting gives every soldier a base from which to progress. The takedown and striking portions of the Modern Army Combatives system all work by building off the groundfighting skills taught at the basic level.
5) Modern Army Combatives works by putting the program in it's proper place within the overall context of the battlefield. One of the first things you learn is the winner of the hand-to-hand fight is the guy who's buddy shows up with a gun first. Combatives are worked into training as part of larger tactical exercises. Soldiers learn during room clearing, for example, that if they have a weapon malfunction, they don't just take a knee, they close with the enemy and take him down.
6) Soldiers go into combat having experience with hand-to-hand fighting. This gives them the confidence to aggressively execute their mission and builds the warrior ethos.

Many people have suggested groundfighting is not appropriate for the military, to which I say, you obviously know nothing about the modern battlefield. Combat is close quarters, there a civilians mixed in with the enemy, and you aren't always sure who is who. People who think hand-to-hand doesn't happen anymore aren't paying attention. The reality is it happens more now than it ever. The enemy knows the only way to overcome our superior firepower is to close the distance and render it ineffective. The MAC program gives soldiers a way to deal with close combat and has proven itself to be very effective in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers trained in the basic tasks are much better fighters than the average TMA blackbelt because they have been prepared with realistic training. The MAC program is one of the best things going if you want to learn how to fight.

Check it out at: http://www.moderncombatives.org/pages/1/index.htm

 

I can't believe there are people who still think that there's no point in training in groundfighting.

Fights go to the ground. That's just the way it is. They don't always go to the ground, and you may not want to go to the ground.

But you may end up there.

You have to know how to fight on the ground in order to be a complete fighter.

Even if your goal is to learn how to disengage and return to your feet, you would be much better served by learned groundfighting to achieve this end than learning some "anti-grapple", or just choosing to ignore the ground in your training.

 

Just to brag about my useless facts... The weapon killing most soldiers during WWI was the e-tool, that is the shovel every soldier has with him. Believe it or not, but machineguns, artillery, hand grenades and rifles are all below the e-tool on the list! This is due to the soldiers fighting inside the trenches, and being afraid of killing their fellow countrymen, so they went with what they had...
I'm sure there were a lot of groundfighting as well.

In more recent wars people have still had to fight hand-to-hand, and with bullets flying all over the place, you don't do stand up fight...

 

[Claps hands]
Well said.

 

Interesting post. FTR, I apologise, but my original post was sarcastic. I thought it might require a smiley (it's too late now), but Slindsay seemed to cotton on immediately.
This post is a good read.

 

An apology for sarcasm is certainly not required; however, certainly accepted. I've been accused of being sarcastic once or twice myself. But there are actually a great many people who really do feel groundfighting is inappropriate for the military, and they are serious as a heartattack. In fact, right inside the door of the office for the Combatives School instructors is a letter from George Dillman to Matt Larsen, the guy who runs the school. I'll paraphrase because I don't want to quote him incorrectly; [ Mr. Larsen, As a retired officer it is my duty to tell you you are wasting every soldier's time by teaching groundfighting. They need to be focusing on other aspects of hand-to-hand fighting that apply to the battlefield. Stop what you're doing before you ruin the Army's program.] Again, I can't quote Mr. Dillman word for word, but the jist was definately, stop wasting time with groundfighting. Unfortunately, Mr. Dillman is not alone in his naive and ignorant criticisms of the program. I suppose if we could get the bad guys to stand perfectly still, we could use his ubber-deadly pressure point knock-out technique. The last time I ran across some insurrgents, they weren't really into that stand still thing though.

 

Its interesting that the US army, having all the resources open to them and probably being able to choose any martial art they wanted to teach their soldiers, knowing that what they teach them they will have to use in a real live or death situation with no rules, they choose to train them in an MMA style of fighting!
Still I'm sure Ninja/Thai Chi/Wing Chun and endless ours of kata are far more effective and the US army will realise the error in they ways soon enough and change what they teach their soldiers

 

The weapon killing most soldiers during WWI was the e-tool, that is the shovel every soldier has with him. Believe it or not, but machineguns, artillery, hand grenades and rifles are all below the e-tool on the list!

Sorry but that is the biggest load of crap I think I've read on MAP.

 

By the same logic countries like korea and singapore choose TKD. Maybe that by your reasoning TKD along with MMA are the d3adly styles.

I am not saying MMA is not a good choice it has all the basic fighting skills that can be easily learn't. Perhaps it is ideal.

 

Korea chose TKD for it's armed forces as a mater of pride more than anything else. also I talked to someone who was in the armed forces and he had learned Judo and TKD while in the army if I remember correctly.

 

Just an aside, I have a nephew that just got done with CCB training. I was able to read the training syllabus this past weekend. Here is the main idea of the training: The course differentiates itself from Martial Arts in that Martial Arts train to fight to subdue the attack of an opponent. This training is designed to kill. ( I am paraphrasing). The instructor trains Navy Seals, Delta Force, Rangers, and other Advanced troops.

 

I don't see groundfighting being realistic in CQC. Not one bit. Could be the fact I know how the US marines train.. My brother was one, 5 of my friends are proud Marines. They don't take your ass to the ground if their standard rifle/shotgun/whatever jams. They pull a sidearm and cap your ass quickly, or the buddy clearing the room behind them takes the shot. If that fails, then you pull a knife, but you don't go to the ground and waste time when you don't know whats behind the next door. Thats just unrealistic as hell.. sure they'll train it in basic to have them know it.. But whats more likely that you'll hear about? Some marine popping a headshot or spraying buckshot into some mans chest? Or hearing about some marine busting out some BJJ in a room to room live fire sweep and submitting some man with an armbar then beating him to death with his own stump?


I'll take the pistol grip buckshot anyday over the armbar. Broken arms heal. Splayed open chests tend to not heal..

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I believe this comes from the WW2 combative FM...

In a military context, the winner of a hand-to-hand fight will not be the better fighter, but the guy who's buddies arrive first with guns.

Indeed, as DarkJester said; hand-to-hand fights are very unlikely for the modern soldier. What chances are there that neither fighters have a gun, is unable to reach a knife and is isolated from others that have any of these? That's without counting blunt weapons that might be laying around.

Even if it does come to this, I don't think going to the ground is a good strategy, for reasons I have already argued over and over again. Basically, while standing, retreat is still an option. Of course, that can also be used against the enemy when you want to restrain him.

But knowing WHAT to do when it goes to the ground is, however, essential; especially for restraining.

 

My sister's ex was a Marine Corp Martial Arts Program instructor.

Like the Army BJJ instructors, he will tell you that you do not want to go to the ground in combat.

But it is very likely you will end up there.

And when you're there, you need to know what to do.

People who say, "You don't want to spend so much time on the ground rolling" are creating a straw man.

If you want to regain your feet in a groundfight, you can't just...stand up. You must be able to disengage. What's the best way to learn how to disengage from an opponent in a groundfight?

Learn to groundfight.

Is there a tangible difference in the goals of the warfighter and the prize figher?

Yes.

This goal determines the strategy in using their techniques in their individual combats.

Yet the techniques themselves remain the same.