# Striking is Inefficient?



## arnisador (Feb 13, 2002)

Don Rearic posted a link to an Army combatives manual earlier. It states in Ch. 6:


> Strikes are an inefficient method of ending a fight. However, they are a significant part of most fights



In Ch. 1:


> Dominant Body Position. Position refers to the location of the fighter's body in relation to his opponent's. A vital principle when fighting is to gain control of the enemy by controlling this relationship. Before any killing or disabling technique can be applied, the soldier must first gain and maintain one of the dominant body positions



In Ch. 3:


> Basic ground-fighting techniques build a fundamental understanding of dominant body position, which should be the focus of most combatives training before moving on to the more difficult standing techniques. Ground fighting is also where technique can most easily be used to overcome size and strength.



The first two chapters on technique are on groundfighting, including the mount and guard. I was surprised by how groundfighting-oriented it was and how much it gave the appearance of being influenced by Gracie jiu-jitsu; I don't think earlier versions were so groundfighting-oriented but I could very easily be mistaken.


----------



## Icepick (Feb 13, 2002)

Gotta love that!  I had heard on ITG that the Army was going to emphasize BJJ for hand to hand, but I wasn't sure what that meant.  

I've got to print that manual!  Kyle would spend WEEKS teaching an armbar from the guard, and the Army has it boiled down to 4 photos with captions.  I KNEW he was holding back on us.     Seriously, I hope the actual instruction is more detailed.  Knowing 1/2 a technique is dangerous.  

As far as strikes being "inefficient", I'm not really qualified to say.  I have very few KO's in standup, because I've always trained with a lot of control.  Perhaps the point is that a good right to the jaw will usually create a KO, but a tight collar choke will always cause some zzzzzz's.  Personally, I have more confidence in my grappling, only because I've done more training against fully resisting opponents on the floor.  I know just what it takes to put someone out.  On my feet, it's more mysterious.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Icepick _
> *ITG*



ITG? 



> *
> Personally, I have more confidence in my grappling, only because I've done more training against fully resisting opponents on the floor.*



I have become very enamored of this philosophy, as I posted here. It makes a lot of sense. It helps explain why boxers so often defeat martial artists, and why Thai kickboxing is so successful against other arts.


----------



## Icepick (Feb 13, 2002)

Sorry, In the Guard used to be the biggest BJJ forum on the web.  It has since died, but some of the resources are still there.

www.intheguard.com


----------



## Kyle (Feb 13, 2002)

:erg: Wow, sounds like some good marketing material, "Army says striking is inefficient" 

Of course, the point of control is a good one.  When standing up, you basically have no control of the other person.  That's why it is a big deal, say in boxing, to get your opponent "on-the-ropes".  That is analogous to the control achieved by striking from the top when on the ground.

The forum on ITG is no more, but pretty much everyone has moved to www.nhbgear.com.

    - Kyle


----------



## Chiduce (Apr 4, 2002)

I think that it is ok! Though it is just a standard for training. In a typical combat senerio, the mount position would be used with a weapon (knife, thin wire etc,), or while you are running the enemy down after he has run out of rounds, or he is attacking you using the straight onward rushing attack. We were taught a little different for the onward attack by after making the intial contact, knee to the side ribs as you would uppercut to the throat to crush the trechea and larynx, etc, etc, on the way to the deck. The typical push-pull concept! Sincerely, In Humility; Chiduce!


----------



## KoshoBob (Apr 4, 2002)

Of course you can gain a dominent position while on your feet. You don't have to be sitting on someone's chest to be considered dominent. And, once you have acquired the dominent position, a strike's effectivness is greatly increased.

It sounds like they hired a grappler so it is heavy on grappling. Any combat veterens here to provide personal preferences?


----------



## darkdragoon (Apr 8, 2002)

From the standpoint of you usually have to strike multiple times and can screw up your knuckles etc., it's less efficient than taking someone down and submitting them, or shooting them etc.


----------



## Zoran (Apr 9, 2002)

With all due respect to the grappling systems. To say striking is inefficient is the same as saying grappling is inefficient. Of cource, stiking is inefficient if it is taught wrong. If you consider just punching with your fist only, then you have not learned an efficient way to strike. There are many ways to form a weapon from your hands, and many vulnerable targets. For example, throat and eyes can be very effective ways to nutralize your enemy.

I would say a balance of the two is necessary. I would not want to be on top of someone only to be stabbed in the back by his friend. On the other hand, I would not like to find myself on the ground and not know what to do.


----------



## Jay Bell (Apr 9, 2002)

I will agree.  The way that grapplers tend to strike is ineffective


----------



## Zoran (Apr 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> 
> *I will agree.  The way that grapplers tend to strike is ineffective  *



Stop trying to get me into trouble!:shrug:


----------



## darkdragoon (May 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> 
> *I will agree.  The way that grapplers tend to strike is ineffective  *



Grapplers do not need to rely on KO strikes or "death touches."  All a strike has to do is set up a takedown or do some damage.


----------



## Bushido (May 30, 2002)

Striking is not ineffective, it is just less effective than grappling, especially for the army. It is harder to knock someone out that to submit him (break bones). To me striking rely more on reflexes and timming, grappling more on technique.

-Bushido :asian:


----------



## Chiduce (May 30, 2002)

In a combat confrontation, especially in military combat there would exist a need to use combined grappling and striking skills effectively. In this situation one would definitely have to complement the other.  If the guy is coming at you with a knife or baoynet fixed to his/her rifle. This is clearly a case of using both skills effectively. A precise strike to a vital area would give you enough time for the kill. Just as a grapple break and controlled throw to set up the vital strike to kill; either with the enemy's weapon or your own! An inefficient grapple or strike and definitely both, would mean ultimate desaster for the soldier. Sincerely, In Humility; Chiduce!


----------



## Bushido (May 30, 2002)

In the russian army (with sambo), if they are in hand-to-hand situation, they tend to use leg lock to break the leg of an opponent. It's "removing" 3 persons form the battle field: the injured and two carrying guys (it is a law to never let a injured on the field).

-Bushido


----------



## Bod (May 31, 2002)

I would prefer to grapple if I was in the army, because rolling around on the floor might reduce my chances of getting shot or blown up, compared to fighting standing up.


----------



## Bushido (May 31, 2002)

Yes, and dont forget hands and legs injuries when punching and kicking. After the fights, soldiers have different tasks to accomplish using manual precision.

-Bushido


----------



## MTisGreat (Jun 19, 2002)

striking as well as grapps are effective. strikin will break bones and KO someone. grapplin can do bout the same just with less injury. but both should be learned, like if in a hand 2 hand combat, striking will do good on foot and grappling will do good on the floor. so the both are bout the same but in different ways


----------



## Bushido (Jul 11, 2002)

Striking can be effective, as well as grappling. You got to deal with the situation in front of you, there are no rule about how to react. But in the army, it would be more knife fighting I think.


-Bushido


----------



## MartialArtist (Aug 27, 2002)

The US military trains in multiple arts.  Muay thai, wing chun, hapkido, boxing, wrestling, and BJJ.  However, in just hand-to-hand combat, they aren't ranked number one.  You would think so but realistically, they have no time to refine what they just learn and learn a variety of techniques.  They can defend themselves, but are ranked lower than North Korea, Russia, China, and England (SAS).  Although I'm from a military family and my younger brother being a Ranger years ago, they aren't the elite hand-to-hand combatants, that isn't their strongest point.

Fighting in the military is a bit different.  Depending on what weapon you have (MP5 Navy vs. M-16 vs. M4A1 vs. etc), and how much gear you have, where you are, and what exactly your assignment is, and other environmental factors determine whether you're going to emphasize kicking or grappling.  In a wet jungle type environment, like the one in Vietnam, you wouldn't want to emphasize kicking.  In the sand, you would want grappling because anyone who's tried doing things in the sand like running, using footwork, etc.  On high rock, you wouldn't want to grapple, that's just craziness.

However, the chances to use hand-to-hand combat skills are getting rarer and rarer.  Ever since the 1980's, it has dropped considerably.  People charging you with a bayonnet in open field...  Not that common as it once used to be.


----------



## tmanifold (Aug 27, 2002)

Unfortunatly the army just does what is in vogue. I remember reading an military H2H manual that said "never take the enemy to the ground with a throw or take down because you will just have to hit him when you get down there, you may as well do it standing and save the time." I also remember reading one that stress that you should never kick.

The plain fact of the matter is that soldiers are effective because of who they are. There are in good shape, really aggressive, sometimes mean and operate in a kind of controlled violence at all times. They also tend to drink alot, which means lots of fights. They are also used to fighting through pain to accomplish an objective.

I like the control aspect of ground fight in as well as the chokes, for CQB but if they think that I would attempt Juji gatame on a battle field, somebody has changed the rules because the generals are smokin some serious ganga.

Tony


----------



## MartialArtist (Aug 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by tmanifold _
> 
> *Unfortunatly the army just does what is in vogue. I remember reading an military H2H manual that said "never take the enemy to the ground with a throw or take down because you will just have to hit him when you get down there, you may as well do it standing and save the time." I also remember reading one that stress that you should never kick.
> 
> ...


A lot of soldiers drink?

Drink occassionaly, but not drunk from my experience, but you may be right.

When I was serving, pretty much all of us were pretty disciplined.  Those who did get drunk did get punished.


----------



## tmanifold (Aug 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MartialArtist _
> 
> *
> A lot of soldiers drink?
> ...



Most of the infanteers I served with drank, alot. Not on duty mind you but after hours, in the mess or the local bars. Some were worse than others. For exampe, the americans less so than us and the brits a lot more than us.


Tony


----------



## MartialArtist (Aug 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by tmanifold _
> 
> *
> 
> ...


wow


----------



## hand2handCombat (Aug 28, 2002)

i wouldnt roll around if there where a bunch of debris. id say for most MAist, the first choice will be to strike then take it to the ground later on. its hard to overcome an opponent with grappling at first. striking will take all the sh*t out of him and grapplle will finish it off. its more of like a tag in thing. one art does its thing and the other will do its


----------



## MartialArtist (Aug 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Bod _
> 
> *I would prefer to grapple if I was in the army, because rolling around on the floor might reduce my chances of getting shot or blown up, compared to fighting standing up. *


Rolling around on the floor.  Hmmmm...  Not very practical if you look at the strategies of modern warfare.  Unless you were on a special mission where you leave most of your gear behind, rolling around at all is very difficult to do.  With gear and magazines, it's very different.


----------



## tmanifold (Aug 30, 2002)

One of the problems with grappling for the army is that it is slow.  Military techniques should be fast and vicious. If groudfighting was involved ground and pound would probably be best. Also as an infanteer I usally carried at least two knives on me. My Bayonet (which isn't always on the rifle) a tactical folder and sometimes a sheath knife. Most infantry man will carry something along those lines. So while the phatasian soldier is trying to choke me or whatever, I am driveing my blade into as many places I can get at.

I like standing fighting for Military combat but grappling should always be taught to help combat Mr. Murphy.

Tony


----------

