PDA

View Full Version : Bragg MMA and BJJ Team


H2H
11-24-2006, 23:55
Hello,

I am the NCOIC of MACP for the 82nd Airborne and the Chief Instructor for Fort Bragg. I also run a BJJ/MMA Team here at Bragg as well. We compete all over the East Coast in both MMA events and BJJ events. If you are local to the Bragg area, and you are looking to train, look me up. I am at Ritz-Epps gym teaching Level I and Level II classes almost everyday, and I am easy to find.

Recently, I had 4 soldiers compete in the Gracie Proving Ground MMA event in Columbus, Ohio, highlighted by a :08 knockout by a LT from 1st BCT.

On December 9th we will be competing in a BJJ event, taking at least 8 guys to compete.

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, please give me a shout. We are always looking to get more soldiers in training, experienced or not.

shortbrownguy
11-25-2006, 09:04
PM sent

H2H
11-25-2006, 09:32
returned.

NousDefionsDoc
11-25-2006, 12:33
Welcome aboard. I have some questions:
What does MACP stand for?
How are you rationalizing mixing H2H with sport competitions?
Is it true that combatives are now BJJ-oriented? If so, why?

H2H
11-25-2006, 13:59
Welcome aboard. I have some questions:
What does MACP stand for?
How are you rationalizing mixing H2H with sport competitions?
Is it true that combatives are now BJJ-oriented? If so, why?

Sir,

First, thank you, great to be here.

1) MACP - Modern Army Combatives Program

2) A look at the history of combatives systems reveals two fundamental mistakes, both of which are related to competition. The first mistake is having no form of competition. This is generally done due to the misguided thought that the techniques are “too dangerous” to be done competitively. While many techniques are too dangerous to be executed during live competition; there are great benefits to be gained by competing even in a limited set of techniques. The boxer is a better puncher than the traditional martial artist not because of the mechanics of punching but because his technique has been refined in the crucible of competition. The feel for an enemy’s body movement of most high school wrestlers is superior to most traditional martial artists for this very same reason.

For military units there are many other reasons that a competitive form is useful. The problem of developing a strong unit program is really the problem of how to motivate subordinate unit leaders to emphasize the training. Competitions can be useful for this in several ways. Competitions are also a very good way to encourage the pursuit of excellence in soldiers. A great example of this is with SF. Just recently, the JFK team won the All-Army Combatives Tourney down in Fort Benning, GA. Since that time, many of the teams are using this as an opportunity to get the soldiers into Level I and Level II classes, rather than doing any type of LINES training. Soldiers see the benifit of the training and want to train.

The other mistake is that once you have decided on a method of competition, training will naturally become focused on winning at competition rather than on winning in combat. Over time, the system changes until it bears only a slight resemblance to the original combat art. This is evident in almost every combatives system. Boxers do not concern themselves with how to defend against takedowns. Wrestlers do not concern themselves with defending against chokes.

The dilemma then is how to garner the benefits from competition without falling into the trap of a competitive focus. The answer is to have a graduated system of competition rules. In this way there will not be a competitive advantage to training specifically for competitions. Those who do will find themselves unprepared for the additional techniques that are allowed at the next level of competition. This also allows for a very safe subset of techniques to be used at the lower levels without losing the combat focus. In the MAC system, the ladder matches and smaller competitions are all modified BJJ style rules. Once the soldiers get to the Semi-Final rounds, the rules move to Pancrase and then the finals with modified MMA rules.

I know some of the info goes to another direction for a bit, but hopefully it answers the question. Most of the info is right from the Level I class.

3) BJJ, Wrestling, and Sambo are the "Base" of the ground fighting in the MAC system. Orginally, a group of Rangers took the Gracie Jiu-Jitsu system, and with their combat experience as a guide, made modifications to meet the needs of the Army, focusing the training on the battlefield. The reasons we train the ground fighting first are because it is easiest to learn and we can train it at 100%, without serious concern for injury.

Once you progress in the system, you train more in Judo and Wrestling for takedowns and closing the distance, and then more in to Muay Thai, Boxing, Kali, and San Shou for Clinch, Striking, and weapons transitions. In the end, while we are giving soldiers a lot of information at each position, the most important thing we can ask for is for the soldier to remember the basic fight strategy for the battlefield, which is A) Close the Distance with the enemy B) Gain a dominant position, and C) Finish the Fight.

NousDefionsDoc
11-25-2006, 14:18
Thank you for your reply. It is not "Sir".

I just watched some video of the competition - looks like the UFC to me. I am aware of the Larsen connection.

You say combatives techniques are not too dangerous for competition. I beg to differ. True combatives are indeed, unless they are pulled. Are nutcrackers, chin jabs, fingertip to the throat, bronco stomp or EOH to the back of the neck allowed? Are they conducting the competition in fatigues and boots with full equipment? I saw Speedos and half-gloves. I saw a lot of mounts and guards and riding. I also saw competitors tapping out.

I have the utmost respect for the fighters with the discipline to be successful in the ring sports. I have no problem with competition to build espirit de corps. I do have a problem with MMA or UFC-style fighting being called military combatives.

Good luck to you. I'll stick with Applegate, Cestari, McCann and Fairbairn.

Roguish Lawyer
11-25-2006, 14:20
Welcome, Yurk. Nice thread you have going here. I look forward to reading NDD's thoughts on the subject.

I am reading The Way and The Power and will post a review when I finish.

H2H
11-25-2006, 15:42
Thank you for your reply. It is not "Sir".

I just watched some video of the competition - looks like the UFC to me. I am aware of the Larsen connection.

You say combatives techniques are not too dangerous for competition. I beg to differ. True combatives are indeed, unless they are pulled. Are nutcrackers, chin jabs, fingertip to the throat, bronco stomp or EOH to the back of the neck allowed? Are they conducting the competition in fatigues and boots with full equipment? I saw Speedos and half-gloves. I saw a lot of mounts and guards and riding. I also saw competitors tapping out.

I have the utmost respect for the fighters with the discipline to be successful in the ring sports. I have no problem with competition to build espirit de corps. I do have a problem with MMA or UFC-style fighting being called military combatives.

Good luck to you. I'll stick with Applegate, Cestari, McCann and Fairbairn.

I am a huge fan of Applegate, and have done a lot of reading on him and his teachings. I think we both are on the same page in our liking of many of the older style techniques. The problem with some of the older techniques is the same issues as the LINES program, which is still used here at Bragg a bit. It was rare to ever see units training the older techniques. I know and like the DonVitos very much, but how often do soldiers train LINES again after going thru the course. Most that I know, never again. Broken rhythm training (I need you to stop for a second while I do this technique) is not going to teach real world timing, and is not going to allow the soldier to gain confidence in executing the technique. It does not matter how good some of the old techniques are if we cannot get the units to train.

I have read many of the other threads and discussions on other sites regarding FM 3-25.150. It is not my goal to try to sell anyone on the merits of the MAC program. I believe in the program myself, both for the battlefield and competition, but then again, I have trained in the program and I have been put in situations in the Sand Box where I then used that training. The real keys to MAC are positional dominance, leading to weapons transitions and being able to train at 100%.

Using the examples of nutcrackers, bronco stomps, etc. In the end how many times will a soldier get to train a bronco stomp or fingers to the throat at 100% before it really matters in combat? The answer is never. Many of our knife fighting experts around the US, what makes them a knife fighting expert? How many actual 100% to the death knife fights have they been in, where life was at stake? Most of them, none. My point is that the ability to train at 100% is a powerful tool, both physical and mental. Is a soldier going to pass the guard of Haji and then armbar him? Of course not. But, if a soldier gets tackled entering a short room and his buddies are tied up, it would be a good thing to know to get to a dominant position to finish the fight.

Reading the FM is a lot different than going thru the Level I or Level II course. I highly suggest giving the Level I course a shot, then, if nothing is gained from the program, make a choice from there to continue training or not. Many times, those that are against the program have no training in the MACP. I truely believe that MACP combined with some of the older Army Manuals is the best combination of training.

I teach Level I and Level II here on Bragg for all units (minus Secret Squirrel units - Thats all Greg). I have many SF students in my classes, and help teach at SWMG in the mornings for PT. If anyone at Bragg is ever looking to go thru the Level I or II course, please give me a shout. I am at Ritz-Epps almost everyday, at least until I take over Lee Gym early 07 as the new "Combatives School". I am easy to find, the 6-3 bald guy, with the huge tattoo wearing the Combatives Instructor shirt.

Jeff

NousDefionsDoc
11-25-2006, 16:32
Using the examples of nutcrackers, bronco stomps, etc. In the end how many times will a soldier get to train a bronco stomp or fingers to the throat at 100% before it really matters in combat?
On a training partner, no. But that is the beauty of them - it doesn't take a lot of practice to jump up in the air and come down on a head with both feet. And it will work the very first time you do it. The rest of them can be practiced on a sandbag.

I have no idea to whom you refer when you say, "knife fighting expert".

My point is that the ability to train at 100% is a powerful tool, both physical and mental. Is a soldier going to pass the guard of Haji and then armbar him? Of course not. But, if a soldier gets tackled entering a short room and his buddies are tied up, it would be a good thing to know to get to a dominant position to finish the fight.
I find this very interesting. Train 100% at what? How are you training 100% "weapons transitions" and beating someone to death?

Yes, the soldier will pass the guard and put him in an armbar - if that is what he has been trained to do. What are Haji's friends doing while we are assuming the dominant position?

You see this as a two stage deal apparently - getting into a dominant position and then trying to win. I don't. I couldn't care less about "getting into position". I see it as a "Win NOW or die!" proposition. And in order to win, you have to stomp the other guy to death. Helmet, entrenching tool, whatever.

Are you saying you used this program in combat in Iraq?

I can no longer avail myself of your offer, unfortunately. But I do appareciate it. My criticism is not directed at you personally, but rather at those that once again insist on re-inventing a perfectly round wheel (I hear we've discovered that the .45 is the appropriate caliber for a service pistol - again). And those that call a sport "combatives". I enjoy watching UFC/MMA on television as much as the next guy. But it has about as much to do with combatives as IDPA shooting has to do with CQB in my opinion. And that's all it is - my opinion. I think it is a great sport, undoubtedly great physical training and I would much rather watch them fight in a ring than watch the All Army B-ball Championships. But what I saw on those videos was not combatives - it was MMA.

It is the difference between submission and a red wet spot on the ground. Somebody needs to be teaching these kids mayhem, not tap outs. They need SGM Jake and his manhole covers, not Royce Gracie.

As far as them not wanting to participate - they are soldiers. They will By God do what they are told. Just like I did.

I will leave you with this:

"They are not designed to compete with the boxer or Judo expert; they are for pulling yourself out of a jam. When you're caught, you're down, and you're a goner if you don't ATTACK. . . And keep in mind, it's 'Gutterfighting': any means, fair or foul, to save your life".
W.E. Fairbairn

H2H
11-25-2006, 17:13
As far as the knife expert, I meant no one in particular, rather an example of something that is trained, but not really "trained". For instance, a unit here on Bragg once hired a "Knife Fighting Expert" to teach. From what I hear, he made a fool of himself when one of the students punched him in the face during the drill. Aparently, in all his years of knife fighting this was the first time he was hit full on in the face, as normally his students are "not allowed" to strike him.

As far as dominant position, we are both on the same page, just using different terms for what we are trying to say. If you are in any way engaged with him, to stomp on Haji's head or hit him with a helmet, you must have some sort of position on him. It is not that I am looking at it as a 2 stage event, but rather that you almost always have to have one to have the other. In you are on your stomach with Haji on your back, you are not going to do any damage to him. Many times when people hear "Dominant Position" in regards to MACP, they immediately think of the UFC. This is not the actual teachings in the program. Instead, back to the Fight Strategy we are just trying to be in a position to either kill the enemy, or if we are unable, be able to stay alive and control him until our team is able to finish the fight.

The things I learned in the MACP classes most definetely came into play on Deployment. I ran into situations where killing the enemy was not an option, but choking him unconcious and flex-cuffing him was an option under ROE.

I totally agree with you on a lot of things you are saying. That video is not Combatives for the battlefield, it is MMA. But, at the same time, it is a motivating tool to get all soldiers to continue to learn Modern Army Combatives. I have used this before, but it is a lot like the Karate Kid. When he was waxing the car or painting the fence, he had no idea he was actually learning something. That is the case with MACP. On the surface some of the things may not make perfect sense, but in the end we are teaching important lessons to the soldiers. I know the program is not perfect, and knowing it as well as I do, I know many of the short commings first hand. But, it is still a big step in the right direction.

I would never take any of the criticism over the program personally. In fact, I think you make great points and I apprieciate the conversation. My job is to teach soldiers and I do it the best I am able, hoping that maybe I am able to give a couple the means to save themselves if it ever comes down to it.

Thanks.

H2H
11-25-2006, 17:22
Almost forgot.

If you ever have the opportunity to stop by one of the Courses here at Bragg, please do. You, and everyone here, are always welcome.

I truely believe that if given the chance to see the program a bit more than just the FM, many of the QP's will think more of the program. It really is gaining a huge following in the SF community. One of my good friends teaches for 1st Group over in Okinawa, and says they are going crazy with it there.

Also, please keep in mind, anyone interested in train BJJ and MMA (as a means to stay in shape :) ), please PM me. We are always training on post and can always use more bodies.

Thanks,

NousDefionsDoc
11-25-2006, 17:31
Ok.

I know the program is not perfect, and knowing it as well as I do, I know many of the short commings first hand. But, it is still a big step in the right direction.
And again I ask - why? Why do we need to go in this direction? The trail was already blazed by the aforementioned. Is a BJJ-based system better than what we already had available? Do the Gracies know more about what is needed on the battlefield than Dermot O'Neill did?

I went back and re-read your original description - I counted 7 different martial arts you mentioned from which this system takes techniques. How is that a step in the right direction?

I say it would be better to teach them 7 techniques total from Kill Or Get Killed, practice for an hour a day and spend the rest of the day on the range.

But that's just me...

NousDefionsDoc
11-25-2006, 17:32
Almost forgot.

If you ever have the opportunity to stop by one of the Courses here at Bragg, please do. You, and everyone here, are always welcome.

I truely believe that if given the chance to see the program a bit more than just the FM, many of the QP's will think more of the program. It really is gaining a huge following in the SF community. One of my good friends teaches for 1st Group over in Okinawa, and says they are going crazy with it there.

Also, please keep in mind, anyone interested in train BJJ and MMA (as a means to stay in shape :) ), please PM me. We are always training on post and can always use more bodies.

Thanks,

Yurk
Thanks for the invite and thank you for your service.

Razor
11-25-2006, 21:27
I just had a discussion on another forum on the MACP, so I'll add my posts from there as they sum up my outsiders (wasn't active duty when the Army-wide MACP was implemented) view. Yurk, please feel free to let me know where I've gone astray as far as the conduct of the program both at Benning and at Bragg. I think folks will find my views tend to dovetail with NDD, which is encouraging as he's a medic and knows stuff. ;) FYI, ARH is an Australian that was arguing that the MACP wasn't deeply based on BJJ, but rather only a starting point. KIT is an experienced police officer that has gone 'hands on' with suspects numerous times, but works under LEO rules, not a soldier's ROE. I apologize for the length.

ARH, I don't know which version of 3-25.150 you have, but the 2002 version (which I have) has three chapters dedicated to only ground fighting. The only strikes referenced during the advanced ground fighting POI (Level 2, an 80 hour course conducted at Ft Benning; good luck having units give up an NCO (Level II instructors are suggested to be E-5s) for that long!) are unarmed attacks, and of those two involve knee strikes (and one of these is a knee/punch combo, but I counted it for both), two are punches, one is a headbutt, and of the remainder 10 are chokes and 6 are armbars. Of the chokes are armbars, there are only a handful (I'll count later if you insist) that are basic moves; the rest are variations of them in different positions. So, this means that if the bad guy does this, I do this and not that, but if he does this, then I don't do this but do that. That takes a great deal more training time than units will allocate (based off 10 years in conventional and SOF units), and 90% of the Joes won't practice it to become proficient.

Sure, maybe the very first block (pared down from its current state to be even more simple) could include ground fighting, but strikes including weapons access, SOME weapons retention, and your standing buddies ending the fight for you need to be added to a Get Tough/Kill or Get Killed type POI that focuses on ending the fight with a kill.

KIT, I have a great deal of respect for your LE/RBFC knowledge, but what applies to a police officer doesn't often, and in fact rarely applies to a soldier in combat. Sure, there are SOME videos of troops taking soon-to-be detainees to the ground, but its not as prevalent as you might think, and in counterinsurgency operations, most of that action should be relegated to police-type forces, using the military to reinforce them in extreme instances.

No bang on Matt Larson, but he spent his career (IIRC) in units that had the time and dedication to really train in these techniques. He never had to pull a Post clean-up detail, or lose 75% of his troops during Red Cycle committments, or conduct some of the PC-friendly Army classes his conventional peers lose so much training time to.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have not attended any level of the MACP training. I have, however, received feedback from combat arms guys that have, so my comments are based off personal combatives experience and their input. Also, FM 3-25.150 is fully releasable to the public, and the course description is from the publically-accessible Ft. Benning website, so discussing these items will not result in any kind of security violation.

With that said, let's discuss some Army realities here for those unfamiliar. Anyone that's spent anytime in the US Army will understand the limited training time in a unit. Since there are many different types of units with widely varying jobs, most often the available training time is dedicated to one of three things: tasks that directly relate to the unit's mission, tasks mandated by higher (co, bn, bde, etc...all the way up to the Department of the Army, including those PC classes), and most recently tasks related to basic, life-saving combat skills that will keep the unit's troops alive. This last category often includes Combat Lifesaver (CLS) and advanced shooting courses (usually run by the Army, as a conventional unit isn't going to shell out the money for SFC Jones to go to a civilian school; if he does its on his on dime and own time). Unlike police officers, most soldiers doing direct combat jobs (to include those units that have been temporarily 'converted' to Infantry) don't operate without at least a buddy, and more commonly with a fireteam or squad of other troops. This means that a fight going to the ground is very rarely one-on-one, and the resisting subject usually ends up with several other guys on top of him, or receives multiple rifle butts, muzzle strikes, booted kicks or other behavior modification techniques, especially should he find himself on top of our grounded soldier. Yes, I've seen 'detainee takedowns' go to the ground, but only the most dedicated bad guy is going to try to wrestle with you and several of your buddies sticking the muzzles of loaded weapons in his face. I also am well aware of the USSF MSG that, during CQB, went toe-to-toe with an bad guy right after shooting a couple others. AFAIK, he didn't use any BJJ-related skills; he tossed the guy off his back (height/weight advantage), pulled his weapon free of a tangle and shot the guy until he stopped moving. He received a Silver Star for this action, along with a great deal of publicity. Have you heard of many other stories like this? So, the likelyhood that a soldier would need more than perhaps the most basic (and the Combatives FM goes well beyond basic) of ground fighting skills isn't very likely at all, unlike the polic officer that takes his life in his hands everytime he steps out of his patrol and confronts or chases down a suspect. Soldiers have Rules of Engagement (ROE), but its rarely as restrictive as a police officer's force use of force rules. The Army's most prevalent response to aggression from the bad guy, even in current operations, is to kill the bad guy.

We all have to perform time management in our lives; some more detailed, som less. Trust me when I tell you the Army as a whole does a great deal of time management for training. Anything beyond Level 1 (heck, even some of those skills) requires a great deal of time to learn and become proficient. That's time units almost never have to spare, between mandated pre-deployment training, deployment, operations, redeployment, post-deployment, maintenance and sustainment, leave (trust me, all but a Todd-like Joe isn't going to spend the first free time he's had in a year doing Army training), and unit training before the cycle starts again. This means the unit's leadership needs to prioritize its limited autonomous training time. Therefore, unless a unit knows that it will be expected to conduct a great deal of detainment operations, combatives training of any sort is so low on the list that it will probably get relegated to one continuous week during PT (an hour or less), or once a month for a couple hours, if that. This is why I agree with Tony--I believe the Get Tough course POI was specifically designed for troops that had little training time before combat employment, and therefore was limited to easy to learn, easy to retain techniques that a soldier wouldn't have to spend much time learning, and were straightforward enough so that they were easy to remember in a crisis.

Ok, so now that we all have an understanding of the limited training time available to a unit, let's discuss the MACP course for a moment. According to the FM (and I don't know if this is actually taking place or not, but I can find out), soldiers of all Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) receive a 10 hour block of instruction spread over 5 days in basic ground fighting skills. Again, there are no strikes included in the POI, nor is there any weapons access/retention skills taught. The first 4 hours are spent on various methods of escaping the mount and passing the guard, while another 4 hours are spent on chokes and armbars--hardly a quick lethal move, especially for a beginner. The last 2 hours are spent on review of what they've been taught. Again, no instruction on pulling a knife while on the ground, no instruction on accessing a firearm (yes, more than SOF guys can carry a pistol as a secondary), no instruction on getting your buddies involved in capturing/killing the attacker. This is the sum total of what every troop (maybe) receives in combatives training, regardless of unit of assignment.

According to the MACP concept plan, dated 2005, any additional combatives instructor instruction is limited to those soldiers that attend one of the resident courses taught at Ft. Benning (except for soldiers stationed overseas; they can be taught by Mobile Training Team). The concept plan goes on to describe the four levels one can be taught by attending one of these courses. I'd like to take a moment here to point out the available training time factor I mentioned above. Again, those with Army experience may recall how difficult it was for a unit to give up a soldier (or more) for a week-long Combat Lifesaver course, normally taught at the same location at the soldier's unit. Additionally, the unit has to spend part of its limited training budget to pay for the soldier to travel to Ft Benning (not cheap), and potentially for room and board, depending on the 29th Infantry Regiment's food and billeting availability. So not only is the unit losing an NCO for multiple week, (Levels 3 and 4 are only taught at Ft Benning, and are required for a unit to have a graduate of one of these courses to conduct Level 1 and 2 training) its spending from a limited budget to do so. Sure, some units woudn't care and would see an opportunity, but that's much less common than you'd like to believe.

Continued...

Razor
11-25-2006, 21:29
So, back to the concept plan. Level 1 training is, as I mentioned, a one work-week course (40 hours, 8 hours a day). It covers Chapter 3 in the FM, which covers mounts, guards, side control, body positioning moves and drills to reinforce these skills. No weapons integration, no armed strikes.

Level 2 teaches advanced ground fighting, and again includes no use of weapons or strikes (except for unarmed techniques). It is an 80 hour (two week) course--see likelihood that a unit will give up an NCO for a 40 hour course. I'd like to quote something from the FM in the advanced ground fighting chapter regarding ending the fight that I think is particularly pertinent--"The most effective way to incapacitate an enemy is to choke him into unconciousness". I'm of the opinion that if by incapacitation you mean ending the fight (and this guy doesn't need to be detained), the most effective way is by destroying part of his CNS as quickly as possible. A choke might do it, over time, but I wouldn't ever call that the 'most effective'.

Level 3 is 160 hours (only taught at Ft Benning), and is the first instructor-qualifying level that can be used to run a unit program. It produces a bn-level 'master trainer' that can only bring local troops to Level 2. This NCO is responsible for the training of up to 800 soldiers in Level 1 skills only, and so is usually at the E-7 level. This level is the first level to introduce use the inclusion of weapons, infantry skills and CQB skills, which I guarantee are taught only to those soldiers that have shown aptitude in Level 1 and 2 training. I'd also mention that its very rare a unit would dedicate one of its NCOs on staff solely to combatives, so this guy/gal is probably also working in at least one other staff position that has higher priority (Air NCO, Training NCO, unit readiness NCO, supply NCO, etc ad nauseum).

Level 4 is also only taught at Ft Benning and also a month-long course. It focuses on training management at the installation (entire post, i.e. Ft Drum in its entirety, and all units assigned there), and doesn't train the NCO in skill-specific training. Its primary objective is to produce an NCO that can ensure the proper, safe, well-designed training courses that bn-level master trainers are creating. This guy, while he has received the other 3 levels, is again probably not a dedicated combatives guy, and is juggling 3-4 other jobs, so you can guess how much attention he's paying to combatives training in the bns

Back to cost, the MACP course had a one-time start up cost of $125K, to include bags, mats and training gear to teach 37 soldiers in Levels 1 & 2 (let me remind you that these do not produce unit trainers), and 36 soldiers in Levels 3 & 4 (remember Level 4 NCOs aren't really focusing on training troops). A post looking to run a combatives program at home station will also require equipment to safely conduct this training. Let's be generous and assume that the post gym already has extra mats (which are often already claimed for other programs), so we can divide the $125K by, say, half. That means someone has to convince the post commander that he needs to approve spending almost $63K on a program that probably isn't a high priority to him. If you've ever worked on a division or installation staff, you know the low probability of that. Then the school mentioned a sustainment cost of $24K. Sustainment costs can probably be directly transferred to installation-level costs, but even 2/3s of it is pretty high for a low-priority skill. Sure, there are lots of other courses run by the Army at home stations that cost more, but almost all are mandated by Dept. of the Army. Currently, combatives isn't. There's an old Army saying that "what the boss checks is what get's done". If its not mandated by DA, and the post or bde commander isn't a big combatives buff, its unlikely its going to be implemented.

That, ladies and gentlemen, the the 'reality' of reality-based training in the Army. Sorry it was so long, but I felt there was a HUGE aspect not being taken into account in much of the discussion thus far. I fully agree a component of ground fighting should be taught, but IMO the BJJ-based system currently in use is far too ground fighting based, and is far too difficult to obtain proficiency for your average Joe that isn't conducting reinforcement training on a regular basis.

And there you have it, from my perspective. Like I said Yurk, please feel free to correct any of my misconceptions regarding the program POI, implementation from post to unit level, or any other facts about the program.

H2H
11-25-2006, 21:56
Wow..that was long. Give me a second to respond...:cool:

H2H
11-25-2006, 22:40
Alright, I am going to start at the top, and just make comments along the way down the post...

1) Please keep in mind the FM is VERY outdated right now, but should be officially approved and made public soon. All courses are taught to the new standard, it's just the Army is a little behind on approving the FM.

2) "That takes a great deal more training time than units will allocate.." You may be surprised at how many soldiers train Army Combatives on their own. I am always surprised here at Bragg, that every time I go into the main Gym, there are at least 10 guys doing MACP stuff. Part of that is on the units though. If the SGM's, 1SG's , CO, etc. make it a priority, then Joe will train it (or at least his COC will make him). Here at Bragg, at Batt. formations, Company formations, etc. the Commander will pull out a couple random soldiers in front of everyone and ask them to show a specific move from Level I. If they don't know it, the Team LDR, Squad LDR, and PLT SGT are in his office soon after. Embarrassment and extra duty are powerful tools to motivate soldiers.

3) "So, the likelyhood that a soldier would need more than perhaps the most basic of ground fighting skills isn't very likely at all..." - Lets look at this from a little different perspective. For the regular line soldier, everytime he is at a VCP or on a secuity patrol thru town, is an opportunity that a completely compliant situation could become non-compliant. When killing the LN is not an option, it makes sense to have some training to deal with a situation. Remember, we are not just talking ground fighting, but as much as anything else, we are talking about training a mindset.

4) The initial training for all soldiers should be given in basic training. I can tell you that I got only about 2 hours of training in my basic. It was fairly new to ITB at the time.

5) "Level 4 NCOs aren't really focusing on training troops" - Most everything to this point is correct, except for this statement. Let's use the 82nd as an example, though we are far from the only unit set-up like this. I returned from AFGN in March and soon after was moved to Division as the NCOIC of Combatives. I am a Level IV and my job is to teach MACP to all soldiers here on Fort Bragg. My schedule looks basically like this: Level I (1 Week), then Level II (2 Weeks), then a week off, then do it again.

Not only do I teach Level I and Level II, but I also run PT programs for units when they request it, I run SGT's time in the afternoon when requested, I run "Self-Defense" classes for FRG programs, I run all Division and Post Combatives Tourneys, I track and keep up with all soldier certifications and on and on. Some of the things are part of my job and some of them I volunteer to do to help the program.

6) "This NCO is responsible for the training of up to 800 soldiers in Level 1 skills only, and so is usually at the E-7 level" - Keep in mind, the way the program is build is on the "Train the Trainer" program. Which means, the Level III is only required to keep an eye on his Level II's (Company Reps) and those company reps then keep an eye on the training for the platoons, squads, etc. That Level III will also assist the unit level instructor when he completes a Level I MACP course. Most of the time, the Level IV does all the certification courses, and the Level III's do the continuing training.

7) Unit Costs are not as bad as you would think. MACP provides a "Kit" thru one of those Army Acronym Units. It provides everything a Post could need to support the soldiers in MACP. Most units already have mats from the support of Wrestling. The only other needs are the TDY to send the soldier to Benning to be certified in Level III and Level IV, which at the end of the day is about $5k. A unit could get a new program off the ground next week for about $5k and a NCO, if they did not have a dedicated building.

Lastly, again, I really suggest getting into a Level I course if you get the opportunity. I compare it to conversations I have with friends about SERE. I am constantly told "Man, it is impossible to put into words some of the things that SERE taught me". Not to compare the 2 courses at all, but MACP is similar in the mindset. It is much easier to understand all of the things gained from the course by attending it.

Thanks,

Razor
11-26-2006, 01:05
Thanks for the info. Do you happen to notice which soldiers are training MACP on their own? I mean, sure, the 11Bs in the 82d probably have a vested interest, but how many times do the COSCOM folks pull out the mats and start sparring? How about the Sig Bde? Have you had a chance to speak to other division/post NCOICs to see if they're having success?

Unfortunately, like NDD, I'm no longer active, so getting to a Level I course isn't possible. If I could, it would be very interesting to see.

NousDefionsDoc
11-26-2006, 08:00
Yurk, I'm back.;)

That's at least the second time that you've said something about not killing the enemy. Do you understand that you are proving my point here?

Roguish Lawyer
11-26-2006, 08:14
NDD:

Which seven techniques from KOBK would you teach?

NousDefionsDoc
11-26-2006, 08:32
Chin jab
EOH
Knee kick
Elbows
Strangles and chokes
Eye Gouge
Bronco stomp

Roguish Lawyer
11-26-2006, 08:38
Thanks. I recently purchased the book and will focus on those techniques.

NousDefionsDoc
11-26-2006, 08:39
And then how to use their equipment and weapons - barrel strikes, etc.

Then the defensive techniques - escapes, etc.

And then knife.

Even if they don't learn anything but the chin jab with groin strike and the bronco stomp they will be GTG. In combat, you aren't going to have to fight the same guy twice, so there's no danger of him "learning" your techniques.

And it doesn't take months or TDY.

NousDefionsDoc
11-26-2006, 08:44
Thanks. I recently purchased the book and will focus on those techniques.
Hold on now. We are talking about combatives here, not self-defense. There are some other apsects that go along with this. One is GPP - PT. Once you develop a little bit of power with a chin jab - when you use it you are probably going to break his neck. And then you will be in jail. Bronco stomping somebody in the civilian world will undoubtely land you in the hoosegow.

H2H
11-26-2006, 09:57
Thanks for the info. Do you happen to notice which soldiers are training MACP on their own? I mean, sure, the 11Bs in the 82d probably have a vested interest, but how many times do the COSCOM folks pull out the mats and start sparring? How about the Sig Bde? Have you had a chance to speak to other division/post NCOICs to see if they're having success?

Unfortunately, like NDD, I'm no longer active, so getting to a Level I course isn't possible. If I could, it would be very interesting to see.

Of course, most of the soldiers I run into training on their own are 11B's, 18X's, etc. I am always surprised at how many soldiers here on Bragg outside of the Combat Arms MOS's train. I know we are a bit of an anomaly here, because we have been so active with MACP, even writing in a section into the Division 350-1. As an example, it is public knowledge that 3 of 4 82nd BCT's are deplyed right now. Still, from 1 BCT and the "other units" here on Bragg, each month I fill every class to the maximum capacity of about 75 in Level I and 30 in Level II.

I know on many of the posts they do not have the COC support like we do, but it is growing. I know the program directors in Carson, Okinawa, Campbell, Richardson, etc. and they have great programs. Still, many units are not making the progress that we are. In fact, I will get guys from other posts that TDY to Bragg to take MACP courses from me because the Benning dates do not match up with their schedule.

Razor, active or not you are always welcome. Seriously, you ever have the time, just say the word. If you are out by Carson, I have a good friend that runs the program for the post and supports all the units in MACP there as well.

H2H
11-26-2006, 10:10
Yurk, I'm back.;)

That's at least the second time that you've said something about not killing the enemy. Do you understand that you are proving my point here?

NDD,

It is not that I am trying to not kill the Haji, rather I am dealing with all of the "What if" situations. Killing the enemy is not always an option, and the better trained the soldiers are to deal with those situations, the better off they will be to stay alive.

I agree with where you are going much more than you may think. In all of my courses I actually "discuss" many of the other options for strikes, head stomps, etc. that are available outside of the MAC program.

incommin
11-26-2006, 10:51
"but rather at those that once again insist on re-inventing a perfectly round wheel (I hear we've discovered that the .45 is the appropriate caliber for a service pistol - again). "

NDD, I liked that line!

My dad taught combativesin the AF........as a teenager he used to toss my butt around on the mat.......said he needed practice. I think he was teaching me..... and I learned combatives when I entered the Army............in 24 years of service, I never used it or talked to another soldier who used it...... so I ask the question....... how often do we now close with an enemy soldier and go at it hand to hand? How often do we fix bayonets?????? Who is pushing something new and how much is it needed?



Jim

NousDefionsDoc
11-26-2006, 11:03
Killing the enemy is not always an option, and the better trained the soldiers are to deal with those situations, the better off they will be to stay alive.
This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. If killing the enemy is not an option (with the obvious exception of prisoner snatches, etc.), then we aren't in combat. We must be in some kind of policing situation. Or a sporting event.

And in what scenario is killing the enemy not an option for us, but putting him in an armbar will keep us alive? If killing me is an option for him, killing him is the only option for me.

Again, I have no problem with this as a sport, but it ain't combatives. At least not by the definition I was taught.

And if you are forced to discuss other options outside of the MAC, then I don't think the program is new, innovative or the direction in which we need to be going. I think it is a sport.

Do you think Fairbairn had to "discuss" other options outside of his program?

Pete
11-26-2006, 11:05
Reading through this reminds me of Mike E taking "PT" with Big Jake's SCUBA team in the mid 70s, my mind says 76ish.

Also the fun days of "Combat Football" better know as "getting even with your highers morning".

Kyobanim
11-26-2006, 11:15
Just a reminder for the civilians reading this thread:

Some of the techniques discussed here, when used on another civilian, will most likely result in jail time. If you learn them, you had better also learn control, and the appropriate time to use them. I would also recommend a good lawyer be kept on retainer.

That is all.

H2H
11-26-2006, 11:16
in 24 years of service, I never used it or talked to another soldier who used it...... so I ask the question....... how often do we now close with an enemy soldier and go at it hand to hand?


We have to look beyond "closing the distance with an enemy soldier". The Army actually tracks as many H2H situations as possible from Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Many of the AAR's are from SF units. I have read and heard many of them. The last number I saw was somewhere in the 1000's of all the AAR's with H2H fighting. How many times do soldiers put there hands on a LN? At a VCP? At any kind of check point?

We are very often within "Combatives" range of LN's. To better illustrate my point, an example...

Hypothetically speaking, we (1 Squad Plus straps) are at a VCP in the middle of a decent sized village, Eastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistan border. Not a lot of people like us too much here, and there have been a string of issues in the area lately. Are ROE's are a lot more strict then they should be, but they are what they are. There are at least a couple hundred LN's roaming around, watching, etc. So, a LN, just being a moron, not doing it on purpose, rides his bike right thru the VCP. Shooting him is not an option. MACP here we come. Hypothetically, he is grabbed off the bike with a Rear Naked Choke, and quickly put unconcious. All the LN's are waiting to see what was going to happen to decide how to react. The guy on the bike is searched and is pulled off to the side to be awakened.

Not the best example, but still a good example of a situation where ROE was restricted, deadly force was not an option, and a non-lethal technique was used.

H2H
11-26-2006, 11:31
"This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. If killing the enemy is not an option then we aren't in combat."

I could not answer that, we would have to get in touch with G.W.B. for the reasons for the very strict ROE's. While it may not make any sense, it is the reality of todays deployments.

Soldiers are being put in situations where lethal actions are not an option. That being said, we have to have a way to train these soldiers, and that way is MACP.

Fairbairn talked about how the program grew over time continuing to add different techniques. So, the answer is yes, I think he discussed other options and made changes along the way. Anyone invloved in teaching a program has to be open enough to allow the chance that his techniques can be improved by outside forces, thus the reason I incorporate techniques from older manuals as well.

H2H
11-26-2006, 11:35
Just a reminder for the civilians reading this thread:

Some of the techniques discussed here, when used on another civilian, will most likely result in jail time. If you learn them, you had better also learn control, and the appropriate time to use them. I would also recommend a good lawyer be kept on retainer.

That is all.

:cool:

I have seen a lot of threads on MACP on the web, and this is the best one I have seen so far. A lot of good points and information.

I know I keep saying this, but take 5 days out of your time and check out a Level I class if you get the chance. I honestly think it will change your mind.



:munchin

Kyobanim
11-26-2006, 12:49
Actually, I've been teaching the Army combatives for the last 5 years. That's been the basis for self defense taught in the 2 schools I've taught in. They are just Jujitsu, boxing and ground fighting with a little hapkido thrown in for joint locks and controls.

This should be a heads up: If I can legally teach this to civilians and know that they won't get into any real trouble, then the Army needs to kick it up a few notches.

I was suprised when I got my hands on the combatives FM and saw that it was the same thing that I've been teaching, (substitued weapons for brooms and sticks).

I agree that h2h should be taught, I just don't see that traditional martial arts be they 'adjusted' or whatever, should be taught.

Bill Harsey
11-26-2006, 14:09
Yurk,
Good topic for consideration. I spent some time around Col. Rex Applegate and might relate some of his overall concepts about training if asked but I don't think I know anything he didn't put in print somewhere.

oh yeah, Welcome aboard.

H2H
11-26-2006, 15:13
Yurk,
Good topic for consideration. I spent some time around Col. Rex Applegate and might relate some of his overall concepts about training if asked but I don't think I know anything he didn't put in print somewhere.

oh yeah, Welcome aboard.

Sir,

Thanks for the welcome.

I would love to hear anything about Col. Applegate. I am a huge fan of "Kill or Get Killed" and have read a lot about many of the things he did with William Fairbairn. I read a lot about the "Defendu" system as well, and again, I am a big supporter of parts of the system. Any stories you have or would be willing to tell would be greatly apprieciated. I am sure many people would be interested, with or without a prior knowledge of Col. Applegate.

Yurk

kachingchingpow
11-27-2006, 11:54
This is an excellent thread. :munchin

I’ve trained in western boxing, Muay Thai, BJJ, Kali, JKD, Shotokan, and yes a drum roll please TKD, in one way or another for most of my life.

BJJ’s real roots have obviously been overshadowed by the UFC, MMA PPV events, and the rules that they impose. That jiu-jitzu was developed in ancient Japan lacking the lethality to actually kill someone has been fostered by the modern sport phenomena. The Gracies started to put a more lethal polish on the system some 70 years ago, but also welcomed the idea of competition, and invited any style to compete. Vale Tudo tournaments were happening for many years in Brazil prior to arrival in the U.S., and there weren’t many rules. System on system martial arts were not taken seriously elsewhere prior to the early UFC’s. I’d bet that if our early combatives founders were exposed to what Helio Gracie was doing in Brazil back in the 40’s and 50’s you’d see more than a touch of it in what they developed.

Competition enhances situational awareness, and confidence. Prior to my daughter fighting in the NAGA tournament here in Atlanta a few years ago, she wondered why I was “forcing” her to compete. I put it in terms I hoped she could understand. You can place a saddle on a fence rail, jump up on it, say “gidde-up” pretending your riding a horse, or you saddle up a real horse and see if you can ride. Sparring with your regular crowd is one thing, taking that skill to the mat and testing it against someone you’ve never met is another… more so mentally than physically. Doing so with regularity is a form of conditioning in and of itself, and is often a requirement for advancement. Parameters obviously have to be set that make things relatively safe… but there is still an element of risk, and the mental conditioning is invaluable.

Frankly the Asian masters who’ve setup shop in just about every strip mall in America have done more to stifle the development of effective fighting systems than not. Their unwavering adherence to their style, traditions, training techniques, and basic “respect my authority”-“don’t think outside the box” attitude have lead to their eventual downfall. Bruce Lee recognized that back in the early 70’s, wrote volumes about it, and developed a system around the necessity of open mindedness called JKD… probably the first documented mixed martial art.

One of the major distinctions that I’ve found between jiu-jitzu and other systems, is that the majority of the system is focused on the “now what do you do?” scenario. These scenarios assume that “something” has compromised your advantage and now you have to fight from a disadvantaged position, to a position where a lethal technique can be employed. Many systems that I’ve trained in don’t focus on that very heavily, if at all. That focus is also what makes BJJ very effective for people of small stature against a larger stronger person.

That kudos being said, strict BJJ leaves one critical piece on the table, and not many schools seem to focus on it, until they move toward MMA. Multiple attacker scenarios. There is no way in hell you’d want to go to the ground unless it’s unavoidable. You’ll die. Between the potential of being kicked and stomped, to being cut by broken glass and other nasty things, it’s just not the place to be. Throw in an effective striking technique to complement BJJ, and add a weapons system… namely Muay Thai, JKD and Kali, and you have a very round system with lethal capabilities, that will allow you to work in every range from kicking to rolling on the ground.

Competitions in the form of “smokers” can enhance the striking aspect of ones tool kit, but unless you’ve got a Dog Brothers camp close by, Kali sparring pretty much has to be limited to soft sticks and rubber knives. That being said, relentlessly training Kali, JKD, Cistari, Applegate, Fairburn and the like techniques develop neural pathways that have a dramatic effect on your ability to react effectively with very little hesitation.

NousDefionsDoc
11-27-2006, 17:13
You do know that Gracie juijitsu isn't really jujitsu right?

Razor
11-27-2006, 17:24
Hypothetically speaking, we (1 Squad Plus straps) are at a VCP in the middle of a decent sized village, Eastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistan border. Not a lot of people like us too much here, and there have been a string of issues in the area lately. Are ROE's are a lot more strict then they should be, but they are what they are. There are at least a couple hundred LN's roaming around, watching, etc. So, a LN, just being a moron, not doing it on purpose, rides his bike right thru the VCP. Shooting him is not an option. MACP here we come. Hypothetically, he is grabbed off the bike with a Rear Naked Choke, and quickly put unconcious. All the LN's are waiting to see what was going to happen to decide how to react. The guy on the bike is searched and is pulled off to the side to be awakened.

I may be showing my neo-Neanderthal roots here, but my solution to the above problem is knock the guy off the bike (easy to do, and will also take a little of the fight out of him in the first place), have a few guys flex-cuff him (which doesn't require an armbar or choke to accomplish), execute the search, explain how close to being killed he came by being careless, then release him. The onlookers see that VCP security enforcement is serious business and infractions are taken very seriously, all the while giving the original violator a physical lesson he'll not soon forget, but not causing serious permanent injury to him. All the above not requiring any special BJJ-based groundfighting skill.

To be truthful, I'd be more concerned that the guy performing the rear naked choke hold in your scenario is familiar with the choke, but when you add in the adrenaline, stress, and angles and force vectors involved with pulling the guy off a moving bike while trying to apply a choke at the same time will result in an unintentional broken neck (a la the rear strangle takedown).

H2H
11-27-2006, 17:43
To be truthful, I'd be more concerned that the guy performing the rear naked choke hold in your scenario is familiar with the choke

I could not agree more :) I like the way you think!

Lucky that soldier had some MACP training.

kachingchingpow
11-27-2006, 20:21
You do know that Gracie juijitsu isn't really jujitsu right?

Had it not been for the fact that Count Koma moved back to Japan after teaching Carlos, BJJ would never have been born. It wasn't until after he moved back that Carlos began teaching his brothers, and evolving the system in ways the Japanese would most likely never have.

(For the sake of disclosure... I'm not ranked in BJJ. I have trained and studied it a good bit under some well known people though. Helio and his grandsons (Ricksons kids) give seminars where I used to train, as well as Pedro Sauer. I boxed as a kid and have trained under some of the top Muay Thai folks around... Alex Gong, Bunkerd Faphimai, and Ganyao at the Fairtex Gym in San Francisco. Just pointing this out so that I'm not perceived as something I'm not... I'm just a fella that doesn't get to excited about belts and likes to bang heads in the gym some. I've learned over the years that one's abilities are more of a determining factor in which system works for them. After having spent years strictly striking, I've enjoyed dabbling in several other styles (BJJ, Kali, and JKD) filling in gaps where I think they exist.)

Robertson
11-28-2006, 09:20
"in 24 years of service, I never used it or talked to another soldier who used it...... so I ask the question....... how often do we now close with an enemy soldier and go at it hand to hand?

MSG Pryor had to use it in Afghanistan when he entered a room, so I'm guessing at somepoint one of us will have to use it.
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3653


My brother is currently about to enter Ranger school in January and RTB is saying they are changing things around a bit they said instead of doing combatives in the sand, they are now going to be doing MOUNT Scenarios. When you enter a room your weapon will 'jam' and you have to close with the enemy.

When I attended combatives school they kept saying - "the soldier who wins the fight is person who's friend shows up with a gun first." I'm not sure how true this may be...


-Robertson

Bill Harsey
11-28-2006, 10:40
Yurk,
I had the privilege of many meetings, traveling and working with Col. Rex Applegate over a 14 year period.
One of the training facilities that was built under his direction during World War Two was called the "House of Horrors' and was the very first military shooting house built to train firearms tactics. The reason for the name was that is was designed to induce a high stress level to the candidate while moving and shooting through it.

Hang with me here, I have a point to all this.

Historically martial arts were not designed to use against other people of the same training starting from a face to face position. When people trained in martial arts fight against one another, most recognize that this does not represent what fighting will be like when faced with someone who has no training but is very determined to do anything to win. A common example, the street fight.

Since searching room to room is of interest in some training, I think it would be quite possible to make a mock building with rooms and halls and lot's of blind corners that could be fitted (or not) with matts wrestling style, for training what it's like to have to go hand to hand in full combat gear when the threat appears out of seemingly nowhere.

You guys could have your own 21st Century "House of Horrors".

H2H
11-28-2006, 11:05
Yurk,
I had the privilege of many meetings, traveling and working with Col. Rex Applegate over a 14 year period.
One of the training facilities that was built under his direction during World War Two was called the "House of Horrors' and was the very first military shooting house built to train firearms tactics. The reason for the name was that is was designed to induce a high stress level to the candidate while moving and shooting through it.

Hang with me here, I have a point to all this.

Historically martial arts were not designed to use against other people of the same training starting from a face to face position. When people trained in martial arts fight against one another, most recognize that this does not represent what fighting will be like when faced with someone who has no training but is very determined to do anything to win. A common example, the street fight.

Since searching room to room is of interest in some training, I think it would be quite possible to make a mock building with rooms and halls and lot's of blind corners that could be fitted (or not) with matts wrestling style, for training what it's like to have to go hand to hand in full combat gear when the threat appears out of seemingly nowhere.

You guys could have your own 21st Century "House of Horrors".

Mr Harsey,

You are ahead of your time...

One of the things I teach here is a MAC version of Advanced CQB training. Using simunition rounds, a team will stack on the door, enter the building, continue to search, and we will randomly place a soldier with a Full Blauer Suit on in a short room. We set up different senerios where the soldier in the suit will either grap the muzzle as soon as they enter the room, or we will force the first person in the door to have a weapon jam, etc. Using MAC training, instead of taking a knee and completing "SPORTS", we teach to the soldiers to close the distance with the enemy and drive his muzzle thru the enemy skull, Bronco Stomp Him, Butstock to the head, etc. With the Blauer Suit we can do this at 100%.

I think the senario training would make Col. Applegate proud (I think NDD would be into it too :) )

Yurk

CPTAUSRET
11-28-2006, 11:11
[QUOTE=Yurk]

Yurk:

Interesting thread, you obviously believe in what you teach.

x SF med
11-28-2006, 12:10
Reading through this reminds me of Mike E taking "PT" with Big Jake's SCUBA team in the mid 70s, my mind says 76ish.

Also the fun days of "Combat Football" better know as "getting even with your highers morning".


Damn I miss combat football, and full contact softball....

The Reaper
11-28-2006, 13:17
Mr Harsey,

You are ahead of your time...

One of the things I teach here is a MAC version of Advanced CQB training. Using simunition rounds, a team will stack on the door, enter the building, continue to search, and we will randomly place a soldier with a Full Blauer Suit on in a short room. We set up different senerios where the soldier in the suit will either grap the muzzle as soon as they enter the room, or we will force the first person in the door to have a weapon jam, etc. Using MAC training, instead of taking a knee and completing "SPORTS", we teach to the soldiers to close the distance with the enemy and drive his muzzle thru the enemy skull, Bronco Stomp Him, Butstock to the head, etc. With the Blauer Suit we can do this at 100%.

I think the senario training would make Col. Applegate proud (I think NDD would be into it too :) )

Yurk

We already do that during training.

It is an excellent tool, as long as the role player reacts appropriately to being shot with Sims.

TR

frostfire
11-29-2006, 14:46
This have been posted before, but it's in tune with Yurk's arguments http://www.moderncombatives.org/history.html

The first time I came in contact with the concept of combatives was from gutterfingting and the two books: get tough and kill or get killed. The way I integrated it to my MA training was combatives really give the mindset aka." in sports if you don't win, you don't go home w/ medals, on the street, if you don;t win, you don't go home". This perspective turned on the controlled agression switch instantly.

Yurk, how do you teach MACP level I in a mixed unit? Do you train mixed gender group and pair opposite gender together? How you make "them" comfortable w/ the position and concept? telling them rape prevention application?

H2H
11-29-2006, 15:29
This have been posted before, but it's in tune with Yurk's arguments http://www.moderncombatives.org/history.html

The first time I came in contact with the concept of combatives was from gutterfingting and the two books: get tough and kill or get killed. The way I integrated it to my MA training was combatives really give the mindset aka." in sports if you don't win, you don't go home w/ medals, on the street, if you don;t win, you don't go home". This perspective turned on the controlled agression switch instantly.

Yurk, how do you teach MACP level I in a mixed unit? Do you train mixed gender group and pair opposite gender together? How you make "them" comfortable w/ the position and concept? telling them rape prevention application?

Some of my background includes teaching "Self-Defense", and I also volunteer now teaching "Spouse Combatives" for the FRG programs around Bragg. We get the wives into the Combatives School for a 2 hour class, and go thru some of the simple drills, make it a "Fun" environment, allow them to do some of the things the husbands do in class, etc.

This is a huge difference in the way I teach MAC with females in the classes. Almost every level I class I teach has approx. 5-10 female soldiers. with approx 50-60 male soldiers. My philosophy is very direct and very simple. I let all students know day 1, that we are an "Army of One" (Army Strong does not fit the speech) and thus, if the students are big, small, white, black, male, female, skinny, fat...they will be held to the same standards for the course. It is a voluntary course and if they do not like it, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. The class is physically demanding, and we lose soldiers every class because of it. I am yet to have a problem with females and I do not anticipate one in the future.

Yurk

Maisy
12-01-2006, 09:13
How you make "them" comfortable w/ the position and concept?

The rest of this thread is far out of my knowledge, but this particular query I would like to address from the other side. As most of you know, I am a complete noobie to martial arts, having only started late last year. So the whole "comfort" question is something I have recent experience with.

So, I started Gracie BJJ a few months ago.

I knew going into it that there weren't many women learning, although I didn't at the time realise how few there actually were. I later found out I am one of only 3 women in the entire class. Since most of the time we miss each other (different class times), I think I've only been able to train against another woman maybe 3 times so far. So 99% of the time, my sparring partner is male. Yes, it was scary to walk alone into a class full of strange group of men on that first night. So what? I took a leaf out of the XY manual for it. I ignored it.:D Worked like a charm.

It was made easier by the fact that the men were all polite and respectful, but as I found out later that wasn't a special effort for me, that's just the way the class is run. About the only thing they changed (as far as I am aware) was to clean up the language a little... Remind me to tell you the story about the "north-south" position one day.:o

I knew going in I might be initially uncomfortable. It was just something I had to deal with if I wanted to have the benefit of the class. I imagine most woman beginning that first day training feel similar. Big deal. They're grown-ups, they can deal with it.

Personally I'm there to learn a skill. I see the fact that I'm always matched against men who are taller, heavier and stronger than I am a bonus, not a detriment. Sparring with a male teaches me how to defend against a male, and also gets me somewhat used to the level of force a male uses (obviously only to a point).

The only thing I thought about when getting into the positions with a partner I had only met that night was that I was lucky I didn't have the sensitive bits you guys have to worry about, and to watch where my knees were going so I didn't make them cry (accidently, anyway).:D

Otherwise I was concentrating so hard on the moves nothing else impinged. Once I started sparring I didn't have time to think about being uncomfortable, I was too busy being thrown around....

I find the other women in the class to be similar in attitude. I don't request or expect special attention. If I get hurt, which I do every time (I always come home sporting enough technicolour bruises I look like a battered woman) I do exactly what the men do. I ignore it unless I'm bragging about it.:D

Anyway, my point is, apart from some basic stuff such as being polite and respectful, I don't see that an instructor should have to change their classes to "cater" for women. That phrase usually means "dumbing down" things because people don't believe women can handle it. In fact the reason for me moving from Hapkido to BJJ was specifically due to my Hapkido instructor beginning to structure his classes like an aerobics class. Idiot!

Bill Harsey
12-02-2006, 19:58
Maisy,
Nice to see you here and hear about your training. Good job.
Guys who don't know her, be nice...
...she's from Australia and not the city part.

Maisy
12-03-2006, 05:52
Yup, I'm from country Australia, so sppeeeeaaaakkk slloowwllyy and I'll try to keep up...:D

Thanks Mr Harsey, I'm completely loving the BJJ. I now can't understand why it has such a low female participation rate. To me, it seems to be very user-friendly, didn't take more than about 8 weeks before I was able to actually win a sparring bout.

OK, so he was 15, and it was his first night there :D ....but he was still bigger, stronger and heavier than I was, and he was in the dominant position and using muscle to stay there. To be able to flip him was..... fun. And it didn't take me years of training and learning Korean to get there. Of course I'm still stuffed against anyone with training and/or anyone who is serious about wanting to hurt/kill me, but I was before anyway.

Sacamuelas
12-03-2006, 08:32
Of course I'm still stuffed against anyone with training and/or anyone who is serious about wanting to hurt/kill me, but I was before anyway.
LOL

Nothinggggggggggggg wrong with that Maisy. That is called Situational Awareness. Heck, I bet Mr. Harsey gets "stuffed" when wrestling some of his favorite wrestlin' opponents. Course', for Bill to challenge himself to stronger/larger opponents he has to venture out to find competitors that sound more like a song from the Wizard of Oz than some fella in dojo,"Lions, Tigers, and Bears...OH MY" :D