Bragg MMA and BJJ Team

[H2H]

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]

PM sent

[H2H]

returned.

[NousDefionsDoc]

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]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Yurk

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]

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]

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.