# What conidtions was TKD made in?



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 14, 2018)

Perhaps a bad title? anyway

I read in a book about looking at in what conditions a martial art was made in to truely understand how it works, so what conditions was TKD made in for Korea?      Terrain, social conditions etc.      I presume weapons were banned so that explains it being mainly unarmed?   It was made in the 50's or around there so it probably had the Korean war in mind and i know it was used as a patriotic thing for Koreans to call their own post Japanese occupation.     

Hmm, but thinking about some calling it  a military art, why would it place so much emphasis on kicks?  Why wouldn't it factor in firearms at early stages since it was present during the Korean war? 



But anyway, those are just some thoughts to get the thread going. (i know it has evolved over the years but it should be a interesting discussion anyway)


----------



## Headhunter (Jul 14, 2018)

No idea. But don't agree at all with that statement that you need to know all that to understand it.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 14, 2018)

It originated in the 40s right after World War II and consisted mainly of 9 original kwans.  The Kwans would unifiy later on and go by the name TKD.

Nine Kwans


----------



## now disabled (Jul 14, 2018)

Rat said:


> Perhaps a bad title? anyway
> 
> I read in a book about looking at in what conditions a martial art was made in to truely understand how it works, so what conditions was TKD made in for Korea?      Terrain, social conditions etc.      I presume weapons were banned so that explains it being mainly unarmed?   It was made in the 50's or around there so it probably had the Korean war in mind and i know it was used as a patriotic thing for Koreans to call their own post Japanese occupation.
> 
> ...



Your going to get the same type answers as folks that study modern Japanese arts that are derived from older arts.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 14, 2018)

Why not do your own research. Look at different sources and then formulate your own opinions. 
Don't get to hung up on lineages tho as ummm well that can cause controversy and get heated at times.


----------



## jobo (Jul 14, 2018)

Rat said:


> Perhaps a bad title? anyway
> 
> I read in a book about looking at in what conditions a martial art was made in to truely understand how it works, so what conditions was TKD made in for Korea?      Terrain, social conditions etc.      I presume weapons were banned so that explains it being mainly unarmed?   It was made in the 50's or around there so it probably had the Korean war in mind and i know it was used as a patriotic thing for Koreans to call their own post Japanese occupation.
> 
> ...


I agree that context of design development is important in understanding the how's and why's of any art, so I Note with some disdain that many asia n arts are more logical in movement and stance, if you are shorter, have a lower centre of mass and Or  shorter legs, which is indeed logical.

But you may be barking up the wrong tree, tkd, they wanted their own ma, that was a bit like karTee,coz Thats  what they knew, but wasn't infactjapanese, as they were a bit down on the jaPs, at the time, much in the same way that German Shepard dogs were renamed s in the UK after the war with germany.

So they took karate and made it a bit different, if they changed it for the better or just changed it for the sake of it, is up for debate, since then if course it's developed further and further away from the art on which it was based, possibly making it more sport and less self defence, 

I like tkd, but it really doesn't suit my body type or rather my lack of hip flexability​


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 15, 2018)

A dude once told me TKD was developed and used to kick soldiers off horses. No joke!


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 15, 2018)

_Simon_ said:


> A dude once told me TKD was developed and used to kick soldiers off horses. No joke!


I’ve heard that too.  Why are people so stupid?

Then again, you don’t know what you don’t know.  I wonder how many minor absurdities I accept simply because I don’t care enough to contemplate what’s being said and/or verify the truth.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 16, 2018)

_Simon_ said:


> A dude once told me TKD was developed and used to kick soldiers off horses. No joke!



I guess some may well believe that lol.

It actually is quite surprising at some of the things that are said about many of the arts and their reasons for being founded.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 16, 2018)

Your readings should include "A Killing Art"  and General Choi's 2 Volume Biography.     As far as "Military Art"  agreed.       Since the dawn of time no military sent soldiers into battle without weapons.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 16, 2018)

TKD was heavily based on Shotokan karate originally and used the same katas.  Later, there was a push for more national pride and trying to recreate its own historical roots.  The art then evolved into a more Korean martial art and incorporated Taekkyon (both an art and a sport emphasizing kicking movements) into it and trace their lineage through that now. Many branches omit the Japanese roots altogether and claim that TKD is purely a Korean art.

TKD further morphed into different organizations and some will emphasize the "martial" aspect of their art while the WTF's main emphasis overall is TKD as a sport.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 16, 2018)

korean arts are basically karate that evolved a little different.   why do they do high kicks?...because they can and it looks cool.
we all look for deep and sometimes existential meaning in stuff.  most often the reality is not what we wanted.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 16, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Your readings should include "A Killing Art"  and General Choi's 2 Volume Biography.     As far as "Military Art"  agreed.       Since the dawn of time no military sent soldiers into battle without weapons.



Funnily enough, the first ones bookmarked and was on my gift list once.    I might see if i can order it now actually pending how much money i have.   As for the second one, is that going to be easy to find?  Because for the encyclopedia of TKD made by Choi i just found a PDF. 

If someone can correct me if i am wrong, doesn't the south Korean army use TKD as a form of discipline rather than actual combative instruction now days?         In addition to this, does anyone else find it slightly amusing they call it a military style and have do in their name?  When "do" usually denotes self betterment rather than combative skill. (at least that's Japanese)


Also this thread is turning out quite nice, keep up the responses and discussion.    I do have another question, is there any word to refer to the type of TKD which focused more on combat than sport/self betterment, or is it just cited as early/combative?   Im used to the Japanese styles of where there is a do style there is a jitsu it was based off, or would that be the Kwans?  




In addition I feel like i should add more context if some people find it confusing, i picked this up in a book on arnis i got.  He cited the different terrain making  each school/peoples emphasize teaching different things, like the ones who live in the flat lands would fight with staffs, the ones who live in the over grown areas will use mainly thrusts, the ones around a muddy area would be very linear etc. In addition to that the people of the Philippines were used to being armed and adapted when people forced them to give them up hence why its weapons based.He also viewed it as important to look at terrain etc as to why people fight like they do.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 16, 2018)

Rat said:


> In addition I feel like i should add more context if some people find it confusing, i picked this up in a book on arnis i got. He cited the different terrain making each school/peoples emphasize teaching different things, like the ones who live in the flat lands would fight with staffs, the ones who live in the over grown areas will use mainly thrusts, the ones around a muddy area would be very linear etc. In addition to that the people of the Philippines were used to being armed and adapted when people forced them to give them up hence why its weapons based.He also viewed it as important to look at terrain etc as to why people fight like they do.


your referring to the evolution of human combative behavior.  which holds true, to a certain degree. but you need to look at it from a much broader view, more encompassing.  your looking at to small of a segment.  so wolves evolved to adapt to their surroundings.  dogs on the other hand were not a result of natural selection but rather human induced genetic modification.  TKD is like looking at a beagles that were raised in a puppy farm and shipped all over the world through Amazon.  a far cry from the evolution of wolves.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 16, 2018)

Rat do bear in mind that what has already been said that TKD has heavy Japanese influence as does Hapkido etc that you can easily find out about be researching on the internet. 

If you are looking at the Japanese "jutsu" do bear in mind that even they have evolved and changed so you are not going to find an art that is the same as it was way back when. 

Also be careful how you interpret "DO" as it can be interpreted in different ways


----------



## jobo (Jul 16, 2018)

Rat said:


> Funnily enough, the first ones bookmarked and was on my gift list once.    I might see if i can order it now actually pending how much money i have.   As for the second one, is that going to be easy to find?  Because for the encyclopedia of TKD made by Choi i just found a PDF.
> 
> If someone can correct me if i am wrong, doesn't the south Korean army use TKD as a form of discipline rather than actual combative instruction now days?         In addition to this, does anyone else find it slightly amusing they call it a military style and have do in their name?  When "do" usually denotes self betterment rather than combative skill. (at least that's Japanese)
> 
> ...


I think you can take it a bit far to be honest, I think there maybe some differences from climate/ terrain, certainly jungle fighting is different from desert fighting, 

But Hi.e. many muddy area are there that are muddy all year round were they haven't invested in tarmac, most martial arts in a recognisable form are not really that old

I also struggle to see the tkw,isn't combat argument, it may have be come a bit kick heavy, but if in combat you take a good tkw,kick to the abdomen, then few people will still be standing


----------



## now disabled (Jul 16, 2018)

Oh and just because a Japanese Art has "Jutsu" on it doesn't necessarily mean it is Koryu


----------



## now disabled (Jul 16, 2018)

jobo said:


> I think you can take it a bit far to be honest, I think there maybe some differences from climate/ terrain, certainly jungle fighting is different from desert fighting,
> 
> But Hi.e. many muddy area are there that are muddy all year round were they haven't invested in tarmac, most martial arts in a recognisable form are not really that old
> 
> I also struggle to see the tkw,isn't combat argument, it may have be come a bit kick heavy, but if in combat you take a good tkw,kick to the abdomen, then few people will still be standing



He might be meaning that when the original ryu were training students they practiced on different terrain and in different conditions. That said they were actually having to apply it in situations of battle and life and death. 

Some of the Arts do go back a ways (lineage - ok some are disputable) but what they teach now is not what they taught way back when bits will have been added and taken out or forgotten or just plain lost. It more an academic exercise now looking that far back than anything else imo


----------



## jobo (Jul 16, 2018)

now disabled said:


> He might be meaning that when the original ryu were training students they practiced on different terrain and in different conditions. That said they were actually having to apply it in situations of battle and life and death.
> 
> Some of the Arts do go back a ways (lineage - ok some are disputable) but what they teach now is not what they taught way back when bits will have been added and taken out or forgotten or just plain lost. It more an academic exercise now looking that far back than anything else imo


no he defiantly means that the prevailing terrain influence the movement of the art, which as above has merit, but not that much, unless you live in a swamp, or other extreme environment, I've had people tell me that " this style" has short steps as it was developed for fighting in boats, which I just though was nonsence, it has short steps because the people who developed it had short legs, relative to westoners a100 years later.

I think there's a cultural difference at the bottom of the difference between the floaty dancey, Chinese styles and the hard angular, military style,drills of some japanes e arts


----------



## now disabled (Jul 16, 2018)

jobo said:


> no he defiantly means that the prevailing terrain influence the movement of the art, which as above has merit, but not that much, unless you live in a swamp, or other extreme environment, I've had people tell me that " this style" has short steps as it was developed for fighting in boats, which I just though was nonsence, it has short steps because the people who developed it had short legs, relative to westoners a100 years later.
> 
> I think there's a cultural difference at the bottom of the difference between the floaty dancey, Chinese styles and the hard angular, military style,drills of some japanes e arts




Ummm yes and no lol 

As said before some of the claims made are not always true 

Not all the Japanese arts are angular lol and hard is not the easiest word to properly define as it means one thing to one and something else to another. 
Military style I do see where your coming from there and yes some of the two man kata do look very angular and robotic at times but that does depend on who is doing them and what ryu they come from lol. That said I don't know and I would doubt that any of the swordsmen of today will have ever tested their arts in reality so that in itself might lead to more robotic movements etc but there again it depends who and what you are watching and your opinion of said in the first place lol


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 16, 2018)

jobo said:


> I think you can take it a bit far to be honest, I think there maybe some differences from climate/ terrain, certainly jungle fighting is different from desert fighting,




Maybe i do take it too far.   I might have put too much emphasis on terrain but i was citing examples from the book.  Also i got one wrong, it was farmland, where they had thin singular paths which got muddy hence the need for them to be linear so they didnt slip over and they had no way to flank etc, it was more the combination of elements than one thing.

Some details are overlooked which can result in harm of yourself.   You are after all being taught how to fight in your environment not anyone else's.   Point examples, kicking when its muddy puts your balance at risk, or maybe you don't have shoes with a good grip for mud if you have shoes at all?    So you will adjust to not kick often in a muddy environment.  And one for cold weather, insulated clothing provides padding and restricted movement, which means you will get used to having some protection and fighting people with some protection and the same restrictions as yourself. a weapon seems fitting for this condition.     One for hot weather, you don't want move as much to prevent sweating and overheating so you will probably want to rely on weapons more and conservative movements, in a desert environment sand can be hard to fight on if you are dismounted so kicks would be restricted and fighting while mounted on a horse of camel will probably fit. 

Please tell me if i missed the point, i have a habit of that. 



now disabled said:


> Oh and just because a Japanese Art has "Jutsu" on it doesn't necessarily mean it is Koryu



Excuse the language thing, it was a rule i was told but it doesn't mean their arent exceptions and it was more directed at traditional Japanese styles anyway.  I have also done minor research but what i can do is limited.     





now disabled said:


> As said before some of the claims made are not always true


that's for certain, no one is infallible.  



back onto the book a killing art, should i get the new edition or old? I dont know the differences between the two and if its significant. (cant edit my old post)


----------



## now disabled (Jul 16, 2018)

Rat said:


> Maybe i do take it too far.   I might have put too much emphasis on terrain but i was citing examples from the book.  Also i got one wrong, it was farmland, where they had thin singular paths which got muddy hence the need for them to be linear so they didnt slip over and they had no way to flank etc, it was more the combination of elements than one thing.
> 
> Some details are overlooked which can result in harm of yourself.   You are after all being taught how to fight in your environment not anyone else's.   Point examples, kicking when its muddy puts your balance at risk, or maybe you don't have shoes with a good grip for mud if you have shoes at all?    So you will adjust to not kick often in a muddy environment.  And one for cold weather, insulated clothing provides padding and restricted movement, which means you will get used to having some protection and fighting people with some protection and the same restrictions as yourself. a weapon seems fitting for this condition.     One for hot weather, you don't want move as much to prevent sweating and overheating so you will probably want to rely on weapons more and conservative movements, in a desert environment sand can be hard to fight on if you are dismounted so kicks would be restricted and fighting while mounted on a horse of camel will probably fit.
> 
> ...



Your definitely enthusiastic and seem hungry for knowledge 

Put that effort into training and studying at your school and you will be starting on the right path.

As for the terrain thing I don't know what book you were reading or indeed if the author was talking about "modern times" or if he was going back in time just bear in mind that if it back in time then yes "professional warriors" just like the professional soldiers of today had to train and prepare for different environments. don't get to hung up on that side be aware and look into it but first get the basics and study at a school and go from there


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 16, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Your definitely enthusiastic and seem hungry for knowledge
> 
> Put that effort into training and studying at your school and you will be starting on the right path.
> 
> As for the terrain thing I don't know what book you were reading or indeed if the author was talking about "modern times" or if he was going back in time just bear in mind that if it back in time then yes "professional warriors" just like the professional soldiers of today had to train and prepare for different environments. don't get to hung up on that side be aware and look into it but first get the basics and study at a school and go from there



I will always remain skeptical of what the over arching organizations say their history is.      what doesn't help is i dont think there is many primary sources for Korean martial history. 


the book in question was is "Eskrima, filipino martial art" by Krishna Godhania, its a overarching book meant to introduce you to the arnis.   the terrain segment was a paragraph or two at best more as  passing glance over on some of the predominate terrain of the Philippines and how it might effect what priorities they have when fighting/teaching people to fight.   Trying not to butcher the point of the section.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 16, 2018)

Rat said:


> I will always remain skeptical of what the over arching organizations say their history is.      what doesn't help is i dont think there is many primary sources for Korean martial history.
> 
> 
> the book in question was is "Eskrima, filipino martial art" by Krishna Godhania, its a overarching book meant to introduce you to the arnis.   the terrain segment was a paragraph or two at best more as  passing glance over on some of the predominate terrain of the Philippines and how it might effect what priorities they have when fighting/teaching people to fight.   Trying not to butcher the point of the section.




You might want to blame the Japanese and before them the Chinese for that fact the sources are few. Mind you there might be sources they just not in English


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 16, 2018)

now disabled said:


> You might want to blame the Japanese and before them the Chinese for that fact the sources are few. Mind you there might be sources they just not in English



i blame all of them for not keeping copies of these things.            Yeah of the few sources they would be in a language i dont know and for all purposes i dont plan on trying to learn Korean or any dialect of Chinese anytime soon.   Translators interpretation exists as well.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 16, 2018)

Rat said:


> i blame all of them for not keeping copies of these things.            Yeah of the few sources they would be in a language i dont know and for all purposes i dont plan on trying to learn Korean or any dialect of Chinese anytime soon.   Translators interpretation exists as well.



Rat I could spend a long time and many hours telling you that not all translations are accurate and even two translations of the same text can be different and boy can that start some serious fights lol so just be aware that translations are umm translations


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 17, 2018)

When TKD formed, the transition in Japan to the "-do" arts had already begun.  I would say that it was just a natural progression for them to use the same usage. 

As for "combat" versus "sport" it depends on a couple things.  School to school and different organizations.  For the most part, WTF is based on the sport of TKD and that is its main emphasis in their training.  ITF focuses more on the "martial" side of things, but has that crazy "sine wave" over exaggeration that it does now.  Other styles like Moo Duk Kwan/Tang Soo Do seem to place more emphasis on their karate roots and kept the old style katas like the Pinans, Naihanchi etc.  Also, used to be the name(s) for what is now known as TKD.

But, there is alot of re-writing history in many cases to remove certain people or influences.  For example, Tang Soo Do claims that it is a chinese style and renamed the Pinans with animals associated with the forms in some lineage claims.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 17, 2018)

Rat said:


> back onto the book a killing art, should i get the new edition or old? I dont know the differences between the two and if its significant. (cant edit my old post)



I haven't seen the new one. However I do know that I and others provided the author with feedback after reading the 1st edition and he may have revised and added material based on information provided.  So, the new one might have corrected some issues and provided more info.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 17, 2018)

Rat said:


> Funnily enough, the first ones bookmarked and was on my gift list once.    I .


Available on Amazon "Taekwon-Do and I"   about $120.00. Where are you located? I may have some extra sets. Bought a few when it came out.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 17, 2018)

Rat said:


> Funnily enough, the first ones bookmarked and was on my gift list once.    I might see if i can order it now actually pending how much money i have.   As for the second one, is that going to be easy to find?  Because for the encyclopedia of TKD made by Choi i just found a PDF.
> 
> *If someone can correct me if i am wrong, doesn't the south Korean army use TKD as a form of discipline rather than actual combative instruction now days? *        In addition to this, does anyone else find it slightly amusing they call it a military style and have do in their name?  When "do" usually denotes self betterment rather than combative skill. (at least that's Japanese)
> 
> ...



Can you explain what you mean by a form of discipline?  Also, how far back do you take "now days?"


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 17, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Can you explain what you mean by a form of discipline?  Also, how far back do you take "now days?"



Its used like drill is per say, they more use the forms in it to disipline you than to actually teach you to fight and i would presume 60's-70's?      Im not that knowledgeable of the south korean military training.




Earl Weiss said:


> vailable on Amazon "Taekwon-Do and I"



I will look into it.


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2018)

Rat said:


> Some details are overlooked which can result in harm of yourself. You are after all being taught how to fight in your environment not anyone else's. Point examples, kicking when its muddy puts your balance at risk, or maybe you don't have shoes with a good grip for mud if you have shoes at all? So you will adjust to not kick often in a muddy environment. And one for cold weather, insulated clothing provides padding and restricted movement, which means you will get used to having some protection and fighting people with some protection and the same restrictions as yourself. a weapon seems fitting for this condition. One for hot weather, you don't want move as much to prevent sweating and overheating so you will probably want to rely on weapons more and conservative movements, in a desert environment sand can be hard to fight on if you are dismounted so kicks would be restricted and fighting while mounted on a horse of camel will probably fit.



It's going to be a lot better than trying to do the kicks in mud if you have no training at all.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 17, 2018)

Rat said:


> Its used like drill is per say, they more use the forms in it to disipline you than to actually teach you to fight and i would presume 60's-70's?      Im not that knowledgeable of the south korean military training.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I doubt that the military in either Korea need to use TKD to teach discipline and if your referring to foot drill in the military yes it does teach discipline, but the discipline it teaches is really how to move together as a unit, there is no deep meaning to being on a parade square although it is a pain in the behind lol.

The military have many more "creative ways" of teaching discipline lol


----------



## WaterGal (Jul 17, 2018)

Rat said:


> If someone can correct me if i am wrong, doesn't the south Korean army use TKD as a form of discipline rather than actual combative instruction now days?         In addition to this, does anyone else find it slightly amusing they call it a military style and have do in their name?  When "do" usually denotes self betterment rather than combative skill. (at least that's Japanese)



The South Korean special forces has it's own military combatives program that's more, erm, killing-based I guess, called "Taegong Musul". This style uses "musul" ("martial techniques") in the name instead of "do", for I think just that reason.

I think the emphasis on TKD is more about, like you say, discipline, and general fitness training, etc. Mr WaterGal went to the Kukkiwon Master Instructor Course last year when it was being held in Denver, and they had a general from the Korean army teach a class on a more combatives-style self-defense curriculum that he's been developing for them. I don't know if there's been any progress on that, but that's something that's been in the works.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 17, 2018)

_Simon_ said:


> A dude once told me TKD was developed and used to kick soldiers off horses. No joke!




That's usually the 'origin' of the so called flying sidekick, oh and nunchukus were originally used as a horses bridle ( as well as rice flails, obviously a versatile tool!)


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 17, 2018)

Rat said:


> Its used like drill is per say, they more use the forms in it to disipline you than to actually teach you to fight and i would presume 60's-70's?      Im not that knowledgeable of the south korean military training.
> 
> ...



If you are talking about mental discipline, most martial arts I think, attempt to teach that.  But afik, Korean military absolutely teach martial arts to teach military personnel how to fight.  I haven't been around any Korean military personnel in about 30 years, but from looking at Korean TV with my wife, it seems they still teach military how to fight.  Both TKD and HKD are popular arts, with TKD probably being the most popular since most Koreans will have studied that for at least a while in school.


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2018)

WaterGal said:


> The South Korean special forces has it's own military combatives program that's more, erm, killing-based I guess, called "Taegong Musul". This style uses "musul" ("martial techniques") in the name instead of "do", for I think just that reason.
> 
> I think the emphasis on TKD is more about, like you say, discipline, and general fitness training, etc. Mr WaterGal went to the Kukkiwon Master Instructor Course last year when it was being held in Denver, and they had a general from the Korean army teach a class on a more combatives-style self-defense curriculum that he's been developing for them. I don't know if there's been any progress on that, but that's something that's been in the works.



My Master was an instructor in Taegong.  He says his experience from there is why he uses the curriculum he uses, as opposed to one that's more up-to-date with the newest forms from Kukkiwon.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 18, 2018)

Many military MA instructors will concede that empty hand MA training in the military is for mental toughness and esprit de corps.   For combat they give you stuff like guns and knives.    I think it was some US Navy Seal who was asked to comment on the empty hand training and his comment was  something to the effect that if you need to engage in empty hand combat things have gone horribly wrong.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 18, 2018)

now disabled said:


> You might want to blame the Japanese and before them the Chinese for that fact the sources are few. Mind you there might be sources they just not in English


 You might want to checkout "Bubishi, Bible of Karate." it is a translation of an old text which really has to do with the Chinese origins.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 18, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> You might want to checkout "Bubishi, Bible of Karate." it is a translation of an old text which really has to do with the Chinese origins.



Thanks 

What I was trying to say was that translations are just that translations and it depends on the translator how good they are and also if they got the context right.

I am not knocking anyone just stating a fact no more.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2018)

Rat said:


> Maybe i do take it too far.   I might have put too much emphasis on terrain but i was citing examples from the book.  Also i got one wrong, it was farmland, where they had thin singular paths which got muddy hence the need for them to be linear so they didnt slip over and they had no way to flank etc, it was more the combination of elements than one thing.
> 
> Some details are overlooked which can result in harm of yourself.   You are after all being taught how to fight in your environment not anyone else's.   Point examples, kicking when its muddy puts your balance at risk, or maybe you don't have shoes with a good grip for mud if you have shoes at all?    So you will adjust to not kick often in a muddy environment.  And one for cold weather, insulated clothing provides padding and restricted movement, which means you will get used to having some protection and fighting people with some protection and the same restrictions as yourself. a weapon seems fitting for this condition.     One for hot weather, you don't want move as much to prevent sweating and overheating so you will probably want to rely on weapons more and conservative movements, in a desert environment sand can be hard to fight on if you are dismounted so kicks would be restricted and fighting while mounted on a horse of camel will probably fit.
> 
> ...


The issue sighT people try and reverse engineer ma, they start off with how it is, then try and find a logical reason why it is that way, and either just jump to conclusions or just make something up,,,, very few places are muddy all year round and don't have other not muddy area s close by,,, designing a ma that's only effective in mud, would be just silly, but yet someone has apparently come to that conclusion and then put it in a book and people then believe it.. There may actually be no logical reason for why something is as it is , other than someone has that preference


----------



## skribs (Jul 18, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Many military MA instructors will concede that empty hand MA training in the military is for mental toughness and esprit de corps.   For combat they give you stuff like guns and knives.    I think it was some US Navy Seal who was asked to comment on the empty hand training and his comment was  something to the effect that if you need to engage in empty hand combat things have gone horribly wrong.



Yes, but Murphy's laws of war will suggest that quite often - things will go wrong.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 18, 2018)

Paraphrasing, but i think i read this in  a US marine manual, the combative program seeks to improve your aggressiveness and provide you with a set of lethal and non lethal skills should your primary/secondary weapon system be separated from you.      Not every county does a combatives program, usually reserved for special infantry to help their survivability. or at least the ones about killing and maiming without a rifle and bayonet.    (i personally have skimmed too many of these, a army one i saw had most of it be about retaining your rifle should you get in hand to hand combat and then your secondary weapons)



You guys knew this was coming, but what is the pattern section of TKD about?   Is it just tradition from its Chinese/Japanese roots?      What was the reason they kept it  around instead of getting rid of it etc.     (I think most of you know my view on this subject all ready, but i wont use this thread as a platform for it. )


----------



## pdg (Jul 18, 2018)

jobo said:


> designing a ma that's only effective in mud, would be just silly



Yet entertaining...


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 18, 2018)

Try living in Scotland.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2018)

pdg said:


> Yet entertaining...
> 
> View attachment 21597


Do you think so, I can't imagine dedicating much more than 5 mins of my life to watching two fat girls in mud,


----------



## pdg (Jul 19, 2018)

jobo said:


> Do you think so, I can't imagine dedicating much more than 5 mins of my life to watching two fat girls in mud,



5 minutes eh?

They do a pill for that...


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 19, 2018)

skribs said:


> Yes, but Murphy's laws of war will suggest that quite often - things will go wrong.



In the last 100 years how often do you think modern military combat involved a weaponless encounter?  Now measure whatever percentage of conflicts you think this involved against time spent training for it.


----------



## jobo (Jul 19, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> In the last 100 years how often do you think modern military combat involved a weaponless encounter?  Now measure whatever percentage of conflicts you think this involved against time spent training for it.


I would suggest most of them to some extent ! Unless you can quite a good few were it didn't occur At all,

If the time you spent training it results in you not being killed, it makes good sence. you could equally ask what % of the general population needs ma skills in a year, not many at all, but yet we all train for a situation that probably won't happen, even those of us who carry guns still train for not having them

of course leaning unarmed combat, doesNt preclude your opponent having a weapon , just that you are disarming him with out one


----------



## now disabled (Jul 19, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> In the last 100 years how often do you think modern military combat involved a weaponless encounter?  Now measure whatever percentage of conflicts you think this involved against time spent training for it.



You could counter that by saying how many encounters have happened in the last 350 years without a weapon being involved in a military situation? 

just countering not being offensive to your post


----------



## WaterGal (Jul 19, 2018)

now disabled said:


> You could counter that by saying how many encounters have happened in the last 350 years without a weapon being involved in a military situation?
> 
> just countering not being offensive to your post



Heck, the same could be said of the last 3500 years. As long as there's been armies, soldiers have primarily fought with weapons, whether those weapons were swords and spears, pikes and crossbows, muskets and cannon, or rifles and artillery.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 19, 2018)

WaterGal said:


> Heck, the same could be said of the last 3500 years. As long as there's been armies, soldiers have primarily fought with weapons, whether those weapons were swords and spears, pikes and crossbows, muskets and cannon, or rifles and artillery.



I was playing devils advocate lol 
I merely picked a bigger number.
I actually do know how soldiers fight lol


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2018)

Rat said:


> Try living in Scotland.




I did, Aberdeen, and left as soon as I was able!


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2018)

now disabled said:


> I was playing devils advocate lol
> I merely picked a bigger number.
> I actually do know how soldiers fight lol




I know how soldiers fight on and off duty.


----------



## TrueJim (Jul 20, 2018)

WaterGal said:


> Heck, the same could be said of the last 3500 years. As long as there's been armies, soldiers have primarily fought with weapons, whether those weapons were swords and spears, pikes and crossbows, muskets and cannon, or rifles and artillery.



...and, as an aside, throughout history, many combat activities eventually becomes a *sport*. The marathon began with a soldier running to Athens to deliver intel. The javelin (spear) throw was an Olympic event even in ancient Greece. The modern pentathlon mimics a cavalry soldier escaping from enemy territory. Fencing, archery, target shooting...they all derive from combat arts. Even today, what are the most popular eSports? Call of Duty, World of Tanks, Street Fighter, Counter-Strike, etc.

If soldiers train it, eventually they compete it. When civilians see soldiers doing it, they want to try their hands at it too. The next thing you know, we're conducting tournaments and handing out medals. Spectators show up, and before you know it -- voila! -- you have a sport.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 20, 2018)

jobo said:


> I would suggest most of them to some extent ! Unless you can quite a good few were it didn't occur At all,
> 
> If the time you spent training it results in you not being killed, it makes good sence. you could equally ask what % of the general population needs ma skills in a year, not many at all, but yet we all train for a situation that probably won't happen, even those of us who carry guns still train for not having them
> 
> of course leaning unarmed combat, doesNt preclude your opponent having a weapon , just that you are disarming him with out one



I guess we will simply disagree. I know of no modern military that does not equip it's combatants with guns and knives.   Before that it was swords and spears etc.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 20, 2018)

now disabled said:


> You could counter that by saying how many encounters have happened in the last 350 years without a weapon being involved in a military situation?
> 
> just countering not being offensive to your post



No need to counter. Even going back before the rifle and handgun there were swords and spears etc.     There is a reason military combatants are equipped with weapons.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 20, 2018)

WaterGal said:


> Heck, the same could be said of the last 3500 years. As long as there's been armies, soldiers have primarily fought with weapons, whether those weapons were swords and spears, pikes and crossbows, muskets and cannon, or rifles and artillery.



Exactly. The only reason I limited it to the last 100 years or so was to coincide with the development of what we generally consider "Modern" martial art systems. Those practiced widely today and dispel the myth of some empty hand system being developed as a Military combat system which would be widely used on the battlefield.   Anecdotal evidence such as Nam Tae Hi at Yongmun Mountain not withstanding.


----------



## jobo (Jul 20, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> I guess we will simply disagree. I know of no modern military that does not equip it's combatants with guns and knives.   Before that it was swords and spears etc.


They set off with them, if it's possible or a good idea to use them is another thing all together, 

You statement was that unarmed combat had not been use in wars in the last hundred years is clearly just wrong


----------



## jobo (Jul 20, 2018)

TrueJim said:


> ...and, as an aside, throughout history, many combat activities eventually becomes a *sport*. The marathon began with a soldier running to Athens to deliver intel. The javelin (spear) throw was an Olympic event even in ancient Greece. The modern pentathlon mimics a cavalry soldier escaping from enemy territory. Fencing, archery, target shooting...they all derive from combat arts. Even today, what are the most popular eSports? Call of Duty, World of Tanks, Street Fighter, Counter-Strike, etc.
> 
> If soldiers train it, eventually they compete it. When civilians see soldiers doing it, they want to try their hands at it too. The next thing you know, we're conducting tournaments and handing out medals. Spectators show up, and before you know it -- voila! -- you have a sport.



Well no, the marathon is certainly named after that battle, but it didn't invent distance running, there is more than a little debate if run even happened, it took another 2000 years for it to be revived,  Named and stuck in the modern Olympics

Soccer on the other hand started as a combat sport, that vaguely involved a ball and developed from there, to a largely non contact sport, a bit like wing chun,


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 22, 2018)

jobo said:


> They set off with them, if it's possible or a good idea to use them is another thing all together,
> 
> You statement was that unarmed combat had not been use in wars in the last hundred years is clearly just wrong


Apparently I was not clear. I rarely speak in absolutes.    I never meant to imply "It had not been used"   since there is clearly anecdotal evidence of those rare occurrences where it happened. Once again here is what I posted. : "In the last 100 years how often do you think modern military combat involved a weaponless encounter? Now measure whatever percentage of conflicts you think this involved against time spent training for it."      So, it wasn't a statement, it was a question.   Do you care to provide an answer.


----------



## jobo (Jul 22, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Apparently I was not clear. I rarely speak in absolutes.    I never meant to imply "It had not been used"   since there is clearly anecdotal evidence of those rare occurrences where it happened. Once again here is what I posted. : "In the last 100 years how often do you think modern military combat involved a weaponless encounter? Now measure whatever percentage of conflicts you think this involved against time spent training for it."      So, it wasn't a statement, it was a question.   Do you care to provide an answer.


It was a leading question masquerading as a statement,

So to answer your statement, ( leading question) I strongly suspect that all conflicts in the last 100 years have had an eminent if unarmed combat in them.

So that's a 100 % of conflicts, unless you can say with some certainty that x conflict has no unarmed conflict in it, can you? in which case it will be 99.9%


----------



## now disabled (Jul 22, 2018)

Guys unarmed combat is taught in the military as it always has been lol it kinda just has (ok it has and will in future take different forms and call itself different things) however if it gets to that then the brown stuff really has hit the big fan.

It more likely you will find military dudes using their unarmed combat skills outside the pub than in combat.


----------



## jobo (Jul 22, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Guys unarmed combat is taught in the military as it always has been lol it kinda just has (ok it has and will in future take different forms and call itself different things) however if it gets to that then the brown stuff really has hit the big fan.
> 
> It more likely you will find military dudes using their unarmed combat skills outside the pub than in combat.


The brown stuff frequently hits the fan in war zones, once someone is up close and personal, it's extremely difficult to shoot them that's if they are in front of you, just about impossible if they have you in a choke le hold.

If you can organise a battle so that both sides stay 100 meters apart and shoot at each other, then there seems little need for unarmed combat, but that level of organisation is rare, perhaps if they had a referee and an offside rule


----------



## now disabled (Jul 22, 2018)

jobo said:


> If you can organise a battle so that both sides stay 100 meters apart and shoot at each other, then there seems little need for unarmed combat, but that level of organisation is rare, perhaps if they had a referee and an offside rule




They did it was called the Sport of Kings and how they kept the population at controllable levels lol

fall out arrange a battle ...watch the slaughter and all home for tea cakes and medals


----------



## now disabled (Jul 22, 2018)

jobo said:


> The brown stuff frequently hits the fan in war zones, once someone is up close and personal, it's extremely difficult to shoot them that's if they are in front of you, just about impossible if they have you in a choke le hold.



That my friend if it happens you then know if you have a certain type of leader 

of which there are two 

the murdering type 

and the killing type 

the first one gets you in the crap and killed on purpose as he or she wants the medals and the glory and doesn't share your fate and you find out in modern times the unarmed stuff don't work as the bad guys know it better 

the second gets ya in the crap and killed by accident  but he or she didn't mean to, they usually share your fate and you can hear the poor sod yell the unarmed stuff don't work he not doing what he should but you forgive him before the pearly gates and say I told ya it didn't work sir or ma'am but i forgive you cause you dead too now shift as i gonna be there for a while as that dude with that book umm most of it about me and my sins


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 22, 2018)

jobo said:


> Soccer on the other hand started as a combat sport, that vaguely involved a ball and developed from there, to a largely non contact sport, a bit like wing chun,



One of the genuinely funniest things I’ve read on here in quite a while.  Thanks for that.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 22, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> One of the genuinely funniest things I’ve read on here in quite a while.  Thanks for that.



he actually is telling the truth lol in fact they had to ban it for a while as the men were playing that as opposed to practicing the longbow another useless but true fact lol


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 22, 2018)

now disabled said:


> he actually is telling the truth lol in fact they had to ban it for a while as the men were playing that as opposed to practicing the longbow another useless but true fact lol


Soccer or Wing Chun?  I was laughing about the Wing Chun bit.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 22, 2018)

soccer lol I don't think wing chung had made it to the UK at that time ...mind you who knows lol


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 22, 2018)

Althoooough.....






They say soccer but it resembles more rugby, amongst other things XD


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> It was a leading question masquerading as a statement,
> 
> So to answer your statement, ( leading question) I strongly suspect that all conflicts in the last 100 years have had an eminent if unarmed combat in them.
> 
> So that's a 100 % of conflicts, unless you can say with some certainty that x conflict has no unarmed conflict in it, can you? in which case it will be 99.9%


I am not sure if  the word "eminent" above was meant to be "element" or "imminent".  In any event, since I restrict  my question to military combat  AFAIAC  you are 100% wrong.   Few if any battlefield wounds  throughout history are from non weapon contact.    Can I give you sources or statistics, No.      Just have never seen a news story or video showing stories or recounting non weapon caused casualties of military battle.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> The brown stuff frequently hits the fan in war zones, once someone is up close and personal, it's extremely difficult to shoot them that's if they are in front of you, just about impossible if they have you in a choke le hold.



That is what the pistol and blade are for.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> II strongly suspect that all conflicts in the last 100 years have had an eminent if unarmed combat in them.
> 
> So that's a 100 % of conflicts, unless you can say with some certainty that x conflict has no unarmed conflict in it, can you? in which case it will be 99.9%



I am not sure if you are interpreting the question as I intended .   Are you saying that if there were 10,000 battles  involving 1 million men on each side that there would be one empty hand encounter in each of the  10,000 battles giving you the   99.9%  or are you saying there would  999,999  empty hand encounters?


----------



## jobo (Jul 23, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> I am not sure if  the word "eminent" above was meant to be "element" or "imminent".  In any event, since I restrict  my question to military combat  AFAIAC  you are 100% wrong.   Few if any battlefield wounds  throughout history are from non weapon contact.    Can I give you sources or statistics, No.      Just have never seen a news story or video showing stories or recounting non weapon caused casualties of military battle.


Hang on your rolling the goal posts in to a Different field, your statement was it had never been used in combat, not that it hadn't resulted in mass Deaths, and / or serious injury,


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 23, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> I am not sure if  the word "eminent" above was meant to be "element" or "imminent".  In any event, since I restrict  my question to military combat  AFAIAC  you are 100% wrong.   Few if any battlefield wounds  throughout history are from non weapon contact.    Can I give you sources or statistics, No.      Just have never seen a news story or video showing stories or recounting non weapon caused casualties of military battle.



Well, there is the _*Time*_ magazine story about GM Nam Tae Hi during the Korean war...
But I think you're right in that unarmed combat represents a vanishingly small and completely insignificant part of any military conflict.


----------



## jobo (Jul 23, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, there is the _*Time*_ magazine story about GM Nam Tae He during the Korean war...
> But I think you're right in that unarmed combat represents a vanishingly small and completely insignificant part of any military conflict.


if it's insignificant rather depends if it's you or a loved one it saves, 
Though small and insignificant is still greAter than his claim of non


----------



## jobo (Jul 23, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> I am not sure if you are interpreting the question as I intended .   Are you saying that if there were 10,000 battles  involving 1 million men on each side that there would be one empty hand encounter in each of the  10,000 battles giving you the   99.9%  or are you saying there would  999,999  empty hand encounters?


Conflicts are wars not battles, so I'm saying that in every War in the last 100 years there MUst have been at least one situation where somebody fought an enemy with out being armed, I'm not even claiming that they won, just that it must have happen


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> Hang on your rolling the goal posts in to a Different field, your statement was it had never been used in combat,,


I would like you to specify the post where I said "Never" . I may have said rare and even referred to anecdotal accounts.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 23, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, there is the _*Time*_ magazine story about GM Nam Tae Hi during the Korean war...
> But I think you're right in that unarmed combat represents a vanishingly small and completely insignificant part of any military conflict.


Never saw the Time magazine story however I did see this one https://1c47d0f0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/ntkdacad/files/NamTaeHiTKDTimesJan.2000.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cqlimTAJ7kmQM9WhhuslACk5FUz3_mFmA0TjPXWJJ_ysYG-nTUJgmHQMAxfzJwIH49y488XfxXLA7FHM0-9rTZ6rwwB2y0E1D9Sxkv0rTBgxXl5OMR5JX6RuBHkMWyir4IEmUXnnr3LFKHHn4bJiOGaQ3WlwZ1o4qClfWsteQGScG9mmiRp5l1pnzvASBOJtVd_SOty0QGZ0cNkhOFbPotpRifaZg6M6j_zaiizaJOnFGfuLqM=&attredirects=0
And he did tell us the story


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> Hang on your rolling the goal posts in to a Different field, your statement was it had never been used in combat, n,



I did find this at post #10 "Since the dawn of time no military sent soldiers into battle without weapons. ."


----------



## jobo (Jul 23, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> I would like you to specify the post where I said "Never" . I may have said rare and even referred to anecdotal accounts.


I was paraphrasing, you keep changing your mind about what you said and what you meant so I though if sUm that up as " never" Are you now accepting of the fact that it's most  likely been used in every conflict in the last 100 years,? That's a long way from your original claim it's rarely been used in the t in the last 100 years


----------



## now disabled (Jul 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> Conflicts are wars not battles, so I'm saying that in every War in the last 100 years there MUst have been at least one situation where somebody fought an enemy with out being armed, I'm not even claiming that they won, just that it must have happen



Strictly speaking conflicts are not wars. Wars are when war has been declared and I may be wrong but I think the last time either the UK or the USA actually declared war was WWII but that is being pedantic however you do seem to like that lol.

As far as fighting is concerned then every military person from the cooks and clerks to the frontline are fighting so it could be argued that if the cook feeds the infantry guy that goes out and "wins" then he has fought and he was not armed (ok his personal weapon would  be tucked under somewhere ) just another pedantic point for you to comeback on 

The last time to my mind that any UK forces may have fought hand to hand would be Korea or maybe Aden or Malaya the US Korea Vietnam but again I am maybe wrong


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> I was paraphrasing, you keep changing your mind s


I am not changing my mind.  Your "Paraphrasing"  is a moving target.   I will stick with it being rare and anecdotal vis a vis military combat in the last 100 years  using empty hand techniques.   I define conflict as each time  military combatants face each other on the field of battle.   This  is different than classifying a "conflict" as perhaps an entire war spanning many years, and thousands of conflicts.   I don't know if I can be more clear. Other posters have expressed their opinion. I will leave it at that./


----------



## jobo (Jul 23, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> I am not changing my mind.  Your "Paraphrasing"  is a moving target.   I will stick with it being rare and anecdotal vis a vis military combat in the last 100 years  using empty hand techniques.   I define conflict as each time  military combatants face each other on the field of battle.   This  is different than classifying a "conflict" as perhaps an entire war spanning many years, and thousands of conflicts.   I don't know if I can be more clear. Other posters have expressed their opinion. I will leave it at that./


No a conflict is by definition where two parties have a conflicting opinion, about who say, owns poland, follow by a difference if opinion about who owns Holland france,North Africa and russia, the conflict then lasts till they reach agreement, in that case when the Germans surrendered, saying each battle is a separate conflict is nonsence, they are still fighting the original conflicting views and only finishes when they both agree

North Korea have been in conflict about the partition for an awful long time, even though no battles have been fought for half a century or more


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 24, 2018)

jobo said:


> No a conflict is by definition where two parties have a conflicting opinion, ae



You have chosen to dissect and address only a part of a term  to try and make your point. The entire discussion involves the Military so the discussion 
as noted and explained  involves Military conflicts.   For you to  use the generic definition for the excerpted term "Conflict" which  as you explain has nothing to do with combat is just silly.


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> You have chosen to dissect and address only a part of a term  to try and make your point. The entire discussion involves the Military so the discussion
> as noted and explained  involves Military conflicts.   For you to  use the generic definition for the excerpted term "Conflict" which  as you explain has nothing to do with combat is just silly.


A military conflict is the same as any other conflict, with the minor exception that it involves the millitary, so when war was declared in 1939, nothing happen For 8 months , we were however at war, though no shots were fireD, army's were equipped and mobilized,

For your definition to work, you would have to claim that though Britain and Germany were officially at war, that waR doesn't count as being in military conflictAnd that is silly a war is the very definition of a military conflict,


----------



## now disabled (Jul 24, 2018)

jobo said:


> North Korea have been in conflict about the partition for an awful long time, even though no battles have been fought for half a century or more



Ummm technically they are still at actual War with the South. 

Ok no battles but umm they have sunk South Korean navy ships and I think did they not shell one of the South Korean Islands and I'm sure the folks that were on the receiving end thought they were in a battle


----------



## pdg (Jul 24, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Ummm technically they are still at actual War with the South.



Indeed.

There is a ceasefire in place (more or less) but the lack of a signed treaty means that they are officially still at war.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 24, 2018)

pdg said:


> Indeed.
> 
> There is a ceasefire in place (more or less) but the lack of a signed treaty means that they are officially still at war.



The more ceasefire being adhered to by the South the less by the North


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 24, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> You have chosen to dissect and address only a part of a term  to try and make your point. The entire discussion involves the Military so the discussion
> as noted and explained  involves Military conflicts.   For you to  use the generic definition for the excerpted term "Conflict" which  as you explain has nothing to do with combat is just silly.


Don’t bother.  It never ends.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 24, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> Don’t bother.  It never ends.


Thank you. You are correct.     Silly to think that any of this discussion had to do with whether Military empty hand training was useful for military combat.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 24, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Many military MA instructors will concede that empty hand MA training in the military is for mental toughness and esprit de corps.   For combat they give you stuff like guns and knives.    I think it was some US Navy Seal who was asked to comment on the empty hand training and his comment was  something to the effect that if you need to engage in empty hand combat things have gone horribly wrong.



I can agree with the quote attributed to the Navy Seal, as that would be normal for some type of units.  Airborne units, Air Mobile units are good examples of units who cannot always be assured of timely resupply.  They are in between regular ground pounders and specialized units.  Units like Seals start out with a lot of firepower, and don't like to be stranded anywhere if at all possible.  If possible, they want to get in, do their thing, and get out without contact.  Granted, that isn't always possible and things then may have gone horribly wrong.  Special Forces are more like Seals, and Delta Forces are more like Airborne, but different.

Regardless of what plans are made, if in fact things do go horribly wrong, I would think hand to hand combat training would be a handy backup.  I can't imagine giving MA training just for mental toughness and esprit de corps.  There are other ways to do that which are frankly probably more effective.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 25, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I can agree with the quote attributed to the Navy Seal, as that would be normal for some type of units.  Airborne units, Air Mobile units are good examples of units who cannot always be assured of timely resupply.  They are in between regular ground pounders and specialized units.  Units like Seals start out with a lot of firepower, and don't like to be stranded anywhere if at all possible.  If possible, they want to get in, do their thing, and get out without contact.  Granted, that isn't always possible and things then may have gone horribly wrong.  Special Forces are more like Seals, and Delta Forces are more like Airborne, but different.
> 
> Regardless of what plans are made, if in fact things do go horribly wrong, I would think hand to hand combat training would be a handy backup. * I can't imagine giving MA training just for mental toughness and esprit de corps.  There are other ways to do that which are frankly probably more effective.*



When the Army Rangers first brought in BJJ to train in, it was for this exact reason (mental toughness).  They knew that with all the gear that they had on, ground grappling was not a wise battle tactic.  If you look at previous military combatives, it was down and dirty fighting of how to disable and put down an attacker as fast as possible.  If you look at police defensive tactics, they are completely different because they have a different purpose.  Your environment will dictate your strategy and therefore your tactics.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 26, 2018)

punisher73 said:


> When the Army Rangers first brought in BJJ to train in, it was for this exact reason (mental toughness).  They knew that with all the gear that they had on, ground grappling was not a wise battle tactic.  If you look at previous military combatives, it was down and dirty fighting of how to disable and put down an attacker as fast as possible.  If you look at police defensive tactics, they are completely different because they have a different purpose.  Your environment will dictate your strategy and therefore your tactics.



Wow, how we live and learn.  When I was in the US Airborne, we didn't have martial arts to teach us mental toughness.  We learned it it different ways, but no martial arts.  We were forced to do things (physical fitness was a big part) and if we couldn't do them, we got extra "training" for, or if totally unconcerned to develop mental toughness, probably didn't even get out of jump school.  Before I got into jump school, my unit trained a bunch of us together.  We had to exceed the jump school standards for PT.  We were often pushed into making mistakes for which we had to do 25 push ups.  When we couldn't do push ups any more, we did sit ups, 25 at a time.  When we couldn't do those any more, we did squat thrusts 25 at a time.  When we couldn't do those any more, we went back to push ups.  NCOs who were training us seemed to delight in getting in our face and yelling to belittle us.  We had to take it.

Come to think of it, maybe we already had mental toughness and they were just confirming it before we were allowed to go to jump school.

Now they teach it?


----------

