http://www.military.com/daily-news/...erns-about-navy-seal-fighting-techniques.html I'd rather they learnt kali tbh. More relevant to their job.
Is MMA just not street effective enough? What about the groin shots, eye gouges, take away the rules...it just doesn't work :evil: The trolls, they've been right all these years!
This was done in 2011? What a crock - sounds like they are just trying to block someones promotion (and as a cynic you might ask how the congressman profits from this...) Fairly sure that a. H2H combat is a very small part of SEAL training and combat effectiveness (they do still have guns right?) b. They have been pretty active over the last few years which presumably means any skills may have been tested c. if it didn't work the SEALs would find something else, they are pragmatic people Maybe this guy has an opinion on the value of BJJ style training? I'm quite sure I wouldn't argue with him http://fourhourworkweek.com/2015/09/25/jocko-willink/
There's a difference I feel. In a war scenario the likelihood of a gun or knife being pulled is huge. Also they should probably be learning to draw their own at close distance. For all the crap they get I've seen some good stuff from Rener Gracie involving gun usage at close range.
Renzo has some nice stuff for gun use and gun deployment, so does paul sharp but its worst case scenario, i doubt any combatives or MMA training helps much as its not really specific enough, they guys they should be learning this stuff from are their peers who have actually done it faced it and survived it Keep it simple keep it violent and get it done quickly
Surely they have enough data to actually compare and contrast the effectiveness of each approach. Why guess at it when you can measure it?
I guess I'd be curious what the measurement would look like. I'm picturing a standardized room clear situation or something?
They must have force readiness measures already. One class CQD, one MMA. Measure. I should offer my data science skills to the DoD, would take me a weekend to analyse the data and give them an answer. I'd only charge $2.3m. Bargain.
The military is constantly looking at and making changes to cqd they have been integrating mma style fighting since the 90s when I was in the army. The Marines have done the best job imho. Fact is the military really always have trained various arts ad one. Boxing, judo , jujitsu. The have done it under the kiss system. And of course violent.
Modern combat all but eliminates the close aspect of warfare. Although the seals and rangers and recon teams do spend a fair amount of time on cqc it is still a very small portion of theit over all training. Fact is there are many here on map that would put a serious hurting on some of the best military combatants. Seals included. Of course then they would call in an air strike on you.
Yeah, I know a Royal Marine (and now armed response officer) that I can kick the crap out of. Although lately it's been getting harder xD
We helped develop a program and provide training in combatives for Fort Drum a few years ago (10th Mountain Division - Infantry). The biggest things that were desired were... 1. Strategies and techniques that work while in full gear 2. Lower level of force material... such as level of force escalation information, escort techniques, controlling techniques, and de-escalations, as well as handcuffing/restraint techniques (all while in full gear). 3. Full on 'fighting' in full gear against a resisting opponent, be it hand to hand or hand to knife or whatever 4. Weapons retention techniques (in full gear) For the most part, we felt that selected techniques from (Combat) Hapkido fit very nicely for the lower level of force material. We chose a very few techniques that worked every time and that could be applied while in full gear and under duress. For further escalation, they sparred full on (MMA rules) either with Redman suits (for full power) or in uniforms (with more of a grappling style than hard strikes). So... I think MMA would be a great base for military combatives and strongly feel that the element of 'no rules sparring' has to be incorporated right alongside the lower level of force stuff where it hasn't escalated to a fight and you are trying to prevent it from doing so. You have to have both. I wonder how the CQD provides for pressure testing...
I agree in many ways... your hand-to-hand skills are not the 'go-to' for combat. That's why we have guns and all that stuff. However, the way missions are today, with a great deal of 'working with the populace' and serving as 'police', and such means that for many soldiers, their sidearm or weapon is a last resort. You really can't 'just shoot' a non cooperative civilian at a traffic check point. Having the verbal skills, the empty hand skills, and the mind framework to work at that lower level of force has to be trained (it's no longer just hitting the ground and shooting everything!). A combatives program has to deal with the lower level of force that often isn't focused on in regular military training.
The thing I find really striking about that is that it looks like TMA but done by rough and ready guys who can scrap. One of the problems I feel that TMA have re-inventing themselves in the modern era is that the guys like these who you want to be at your school automatically go to Muay Thai now.
The average seal, ranger, recon team member will not be doing civilian interactions. They are however trained in non leathal submission techniques. The average military person has non combat role. Their cqc training is very minimal at best. The average infantry is only slight ly better. They are the ones who most often interact with the civilian population. Then their is the green beret guys. ( I met one. advisor in the first gulf war ) completely diffrent breed all together. Would barely talk about anything other than his cat.
This. I met a tai chi teacher a while back who had trained when he was young and a scrapper and bemoaned the fact that all he got now were old ladies and hippies to train with "I tell them you can smash someone into a wall with this, and they're not interested"
I'm paraphrasing here. But a platoon sergeant in my battalion, who did a rotation with 22 SAS, once summed up UK special forces CQB training as "a powerpoint presentation emphasising pulling the other guy's ears and testicles off." The yanks definitely buy into the effectiveness of CQB stuff way more than us (which is probably why we're better).
not my area of expertise but I am given to understand that time is also devoted to two on one attacks where the special forces would be the two rather than the one. killing the opponent as quickly as possible both with knives and without. Something that MMA would not be particularly suited for.
