# Datu Worden web site update



## zenman (Jan 17, 2002)

To all interested parties.  

Datu Kelly Worden's site has been updated to include a sample videos page (showing Datu Worden in action), a new gallery (showing Datu Worden instructing SF troops, a memorial page for SFC Chapman and many other item of interest.

This may clear up some misconceptions in inform.

There is decent espada e daga video it is 14 MB though so if you have dial up you may have to wait a while, it's worth it. 

Regards,
zenman


----------



## Icepick (Jan 17, 2002)

What's the address?


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (Jan 17, 2002)

www.kellyworden.com


----------



## arnisador (Jan 17, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Icepick _
> *What's the address? *



It's at www.kellyworden.com.

The site has definitely been jazzed up! I'll look at it in more detail later. Is the following from the What's New? page strictly correct:


> SFC Chapman as you may know, is
> the first US Casualty in the Afghanistan War.



Was SFC Chapman not the first _miltary_ casualty due to _hostile fire_? There were deaths prior to his in accidents, weren't there,and of course the CIA officer? I don't mean to downplay what the sergeant did and represents but the other casualties represent people who gave their lives for their country as well. The http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20020111/us/soldier_killed_tribute_8.html]AP reports:


> With somber eulogies and a few wistful chuckles, friends and family bid farewell Friday to Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Chapman one week after he became the first American serviceman killed by enemy fire in Afghanistan.



This recognizes the deaths of the others I think. The posting of a tribute there is great--please don't take this as criticism of the tribute.


----------



## no fefe (Jan 17, 2002)

The site looks great Zenman!

Robert K.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 17, 2002)

I tried going there and got "You are not authorized to view this page"


----------



## no fefe (Jan 17, 2002)

but then I just opened up a new window and tried again and it went in ok.

Robert K


----------



## Pugsly (Feb 11, 2002)

I had a chance to meet Datu Worden at the Portland seminar.  I admitt I was impressed with his knowlege.  I wanted to find out more about him, so I went browsing on is site.  Now I have a question.

Who is the CO at Fort Lewis?  He needs to be informed of the gross indescretion of his soldiers.  

I come from a long line of military personnel, and I find it hard to believe that our SF troops are allowed to train in tennis shoes.  A military uniform includes combat boots, or uniform shoes.  Not white sneakers.  We train in the same uniform that we are going to wear into combat.  It would not make sense to do it any other way.

The second problem I have is the fact that pictures were taken of our SF team (or at least two of them) training.  Was this cleared?
And why were they allowed to be put on the internet?


----------



## arnisador (Feb 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Pugsly _
> *I find it hard to believe that our SF troops are allowed to train in tennis shoes.  A military uniform includes combat boots, or uniform shoes.  Not white sneakers.  We train in the same uniform that we are going to wear into combat.  It would not make sense to do it any other way.*



Boy, do I remember the "Don't mix parts of different uniforms!" rule! And I was a civilian (in a green-shirted environment).


----------



## Don Rearic (Feb 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Pugsly _
> *Who is the CO at Fort Lewis?  He needs to be informed of the gross indescretion of his soldiers.*



Well, I would assume you would want to contact someone higher than the CO of Ft. Lewis.








FM 3-25.150 Combatives, 18 January 2002

I can no longer find the [1992] FM 21-150 Combatives Manual. This one [3-25.150 Combatives] is not much of an improvement in my opinion... 

The 1992 21-150 Combatives Manual was entirely line drawings, the new one has some of the old line drawings and some photos as seen above.  

In the line drawings, Soldiers are wearing combat boots, in the actual photos [I don't know about all of them, but in many of them.] Soldiers are wearing "tennis" shoes, although they are not white, they're more subdued.



> *I come from a long line of military personnel, and I find it hard to believe that our SF troops are allowed to train in tennis shoes.  A military uniform includes combat boots, or uniform shoes.  Not white sneakers.  We train in the same uniform that we are going to wear into combat.  It would not make sense to do it any other way.*



It's pretty obvious that white "tennis" shoes are not a part of the uniform. Then again, it's a training environment and it's not about being "lax," I'm sure. It's probably more about injuries both to the person wearing them as well as "receiving" them by accident during training in the teeth, etc. A "tennis" shoe might hurt in the mouth and might split a lip, a boot will knock your teeth out.

There was a time when Soldiers and Marines had to run exclusively in combat boots, I believe they changed it due to injuries. That's not to say they never run or train in combat boots, it's just to say that in alot of instances, it's better to allow them to use "tennis" shoes than to wash people out of Programs because of a misguided and overly-Authoritarian calls for absolute uniformity.

Yes, yes, yes, the Military is by its nature "Authoritarian" and "uniform." However, it shows a responsible and mature attitude in not causing injuries that can be avoided which offers more benefit than training in combat boots constantly.

And like I said, I'm sure they sometimes _do_ train in them.




> *The second problem I have is the fact that pictures were taken of our SF team (or at least two of them) training.  Was this cleared? And why were they allowed to be put on the internet?*



Again, investigate the picture posted above as well as the link. The October 2001 Issue of Inside Kung Fu Magazine featured an Article by Stuart Craig. "The Future of Battle." I'm sure all of this is OK.

They have faces in their own Combatives Manual and that is on the Internet as well.

I think in some cases, your point would be valid, but it is apparently not an issue at all in some cases.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 13, 2002)

Mr. Rearic, thanks for this interesting link to the combatives manual. CWould you expand on why it is not much of an improvement in your opinion?

Also I started a thread in the Grappling forum stating my surprise at how much groundfighting with Gracie-style terms was in it. Do you know when that change happened, or am I misremembering earlier versions as being more strikes and standing throws?


----------



## Icepick (Feb 13, 2002)

Don -

Thanks from me too!  I appreciate that link!


----------



## Don Rearic (Feb 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Mr. Rearic, thanks for this interesting link to the combatives manual. CWould you expand on why it is not much of an improvement in your opinion?*



First off, you're welcome to both of you. I try to keep up to date on all the newest ideas and twists, etc.

I think looking at this as an improvement...would be a mistake. The other, older, 1992 FM 21-150 had more striking in it and little on the groundfighting side.

I think in honesty, you should know how to fight on the ground but with an emphasis on getting back up off the ground. Even in the streets of America, the street and most certainly a battlefield is not the UFC. You will get your head kicked in or stabbed...whatever. It's just not where you want to be at all.

If you end up on the ground, you should know how to deal with it. With the goal of getting back up before someone puts a bullet or a bayonet into you.

I think this would have been "OK" had it been included as an add-on section to give Soldiers some more skills...but to eliminate effective striking and embrace this, by default as a viable alternative to striking...is a huge error.



> *Do you know when that change happened, or am I misremembering earlier versions as being more strikes and standing throws?*



The change has been coming for quite some time, the manual linked above is a brand new release, Jan. 2002. The other one that has now been removed, I have printed out and should have all of the files saved in HTML somwhere on disk.

There are alot of things rocking and rolling in the Combatives World when it comes to the Military right now. As a matter of fact, I have to call Datu Worden today to get his ideas on the USMC LINE System [Donvito] that the USMC discarded and now I hear rumblings one Special Forces Group has adopted or will try to make it SF-wide. Don't know yet. Might have to get in touch with "Progressive" and see if he has heard anything about it as well.

The USMC dumped LINE and went with modified from old and new techniques and our referring to it as "Close Combat." Although that is an older term that goes back to Fairbairn, Sykes and Applegate...a solid system for soldiers. But the USMC added more to it. 

If I find the links later today, the USMC CC Manual is online in PDF for those that are interested and have Adobe Acrobat. Print it out for your files... LINE might be "online" as well...

More later.


----------



## Don Rearic (Feb 13, 2002)

Knife Arts Forum Thread to Continue Comments with links.


----------

