# Modern Army Combatives Program



## LoneRider (Jul 9, 2009)

As a Navy Individual Augmentee the subject was part of our training at FT Sill, OK before we deployed almost a year ago. I recall our instructors stating that 90% of fights go to the ground.

Now I have trained in various MAs throughout my life, the most practical training received thus far before MACP was at Centerline Martial Arts Academy in Neptune Beach, FL. I recall one teacher of mine there, a former cop, saying that statistic of ground fights is true if the combatants don't know what they're doing. 

MACP tends to start with training in groundfighting first then working up to standup fighting, based on the above logic. Far be it from me to question Army training methods, but wouldn't it be more practical to teach how not to go to the ground (i.e. practical takedown defenses and the like) before teaching groundfighting? Any thoughts on that?


----------



## seasoned (Jul 9, 2009)

LoneRider said:


> As a Navy Individual Augmentee the subject was part of our training at FT Sill, OK before we deployed almost a year ago. I recall our instructors stating that 90% of fights go to the ground.
> 
> Now I have trained in various MAs throughout my life, the most practical training received thus far before MACP was at Centerline Martial Arts Academy in Neptune Beach, FL. I recall one teacher of mine there, a former cop, saying that statistic of ground fights is true if the combatants don't know what they're doing.
> 
> MACP tends to start with training in groundfighting first then working up to standup fighting, based on the above logic. Far be it from me to question Army training methods, but wouldn't it be more practical to teach how not to go to the ground (i.e. practical takedown defenses and the like) before teaching groundfighting? Any thoughts on that?


I like the logic, teach ground first so you know why you want to stay up. Ground people get very involved, your hands and feet can be used up, or down. Stick with the natural.


----------



## J Ellis (Jul 10, 2009)

90% of fights go to the ground...if you are a LEO trying to handcuff a suspect who is resisting. Otherwise...

You have a better idea for training progression.

Teach students how to establish a base and maintain it throughout the application of technique.
Teach students how to defend against takedowns and how to extricate from as well as enter and exploit standing grappling positions.
Teach students how to get up after going down while maintaining a defensive profile and offensive positioning.
Teach students how to fight while on the ground.
Joel


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 10, 2009)

When I went through the Army Combatives course, I thought that they had the right idea in teaching the material, but the curriculum and training order was a bit off.

I would agree that the training should begin from standing postion and as it would in combat.  I firmly believe that it should begin (of course, all training done in IBA and battle rattle) with M16 in hands, then go to unarmed, then go to the ground.  There is no need to teach the ground first, since the first objective is to stay up.

Plus, I don't buy the statistic that 90% of the fights go to the ground....


----------



## Nolerama (Jul 10, 2009)

Why not be proficient in the standing, clinch, and ground ranges? That way, transition to another range is smooth, and you can fight just as well in the next range.


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 10, 2009)

> When I went through the Army Combatives course, I thought that they had the right idea in teaching the material, but the curriculum and training order was a bit off.
> 
> I would agree that the training should begin from standing postion and as it would in combat. I firmly believe that it should begin (of course, all training done in IBA and battle rattle) with M16 in hands, then go to unarmed, then go to the ground. There is no need to teach the ground first, since the first objective is to stay up.
> 
> Plus, I don't buy the statistic that 90% of the fights go to the ground....


 
I agree with you. Standup should be taught first then the progression to SHTF, i.e. groundfighting. 



> Why not be proficient in the standing, clinch, and ground ranges? That way, transition to another range is smooth, and you can fight just as well in the next range.


 
That is the stated goal of MACP, which is largely BJJ/MMA in terms of execution. However the execution could use a little work. I believe, as previously stated, level one training should teach standup and how to avoid going to the ground as well as groundfighting for a well rounded and fairly well trained soldier.


----------



## seasoned (Jul 11, 2009)

J Ellis said:


> 90% of fights go to the ground...if you are a LEO trying to handcuff a suspect who is resisting. Otherwise...
> 
> 
> You have a better idea for training progression.
> ...


This is a good observation and statistically correct, but keep in mind that LEO in a non-compliant hand cuffing try to take the person to the ground 100% of the time. So it may go to the ground, but the officer is directing the individual there.


----------



## searcher (Jul 11, 2009)

I am currently helping a few guys at my gym that are getting ready for boot camp and a couple that are getting ready to deploy.    I am working their fitness and standup.    Why?     Have you tried to grapple with someone wearing a vest and a ton of stuff you are going to be carrying?    It is extremely difficult.    I am not against the ground game.    Quite the contrary.    But if it were me, I don't want to grapple in a combat zone.

Rifle first.
Pistol second.
Knife third.
Hands and feet, a very distant fourth.


JMO and I am sticking to it.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 11, 2009)

"
Plus, I don't buy the statistic that 90% of the fights go to the ground...."

IIRC, the stat was based on a police study but the context of the study was police officers dealing with suspects.  So naturally the police officer in question was trying to get the suspect to the ground in order to restrain/cuff them.  So the context of "90% of fights go to the ground" was fairly skewed by the data, not an indicator of the average altercation.

Or as I like to say "90% of fights may go to the ground but 100% start standing up"

However, in all situations, gravity is there. So regardless of what you want to do, when anything slips or anything fails, gravity will reassert it's prerogative


----------



## astrobiologist (Jul 11, 2009)

I was checking out a book on MACP, and it made me wonder why there was such a strong focus on grappling.  Don't get me wrong, I love grappling and the ground game is important, but it would seem logical that in a war-zone (or in a dark alley even) that going to the ground is the last thing you want to do.

About that 90% of fights go to the ground stuff...

1.)  They say 87.845736% of statistics are made up on the spot.  I've seen figures posted here and there about these numbers, but they're always taken out of context.  For instance, as was mentioned earlier, LEOs tend to lead perps to the ground for handcuffing when said perps are not cooperative; so in their case it may be same large ratio.  Heck, I bet law enforcement organizations can even significantly quantify the number of times this happens since LEOs have to report on their arrests.  But, there's really no way to get legitimate numbers from street fights since most of those fights aren't ever reported to any group that could collate the data, and even if said altercations were reported there's a good chance that one or more involved parties would exagerrate the truth.  Simply put: that "'whatever percent' of fights go to the ground" stuff is just someone reaching for a figure to make their personal belief sound significant when it truly is not. 

2.)  In my experience, when it comes to fights in the street, except in cases of pugilism (i.e. two guys square up and fight with their friends in a circle watching but not interveining), fights rarely go to the ground.  I've never gone to the ground in a fight, and I hope to keep it that way.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen.  I have a lot of friends who've worked as bouncers.  Most of their stories involve altercations where a few punches or shoves happened and not much else.  Honestly, that's usually the extent of most physical violence.  When it does go beyond that, it is usually in the best interest of the defender to avoid going to the ground.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 11, 2009)

Well, some of the people here seem a little unhappy with what the Army does, but what about the Marines? Anybody got any complaints about MCMAP?


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 12, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> Well, some of the people here seem a little unhappy with what the Army does, but what about the Marines? Anybody got any complaints about MCMAP?



The title of the thread is Modern Army Combatives Program, so please stick with that.  If you want to discuss MCMAP, feel free to open a new thread or revive one of the old ones.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 12, 2009)

searcher said:


> I am currently helping a few guys at my gym that are getting ready for boot camp and a couple that are getting ready to deploy. I am working their fitness and standup. Why? Have you tried to grapple with someone wearing a vest and a ton of stuff you are going to be carrying? It is extremely difficult. I am not against the ground game. Quite the contrary. But if it were me, I don't want to grapple in a combat zone.
> 
> Rifle first.
> Pistol second.
> ...


 
We have some tank regiment guys in the same position though they reckon that if they have to use their personal weapons let alone have to actually fight hand to hand they are in very big trouble!


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 12, 2009)

> I am currently helping a few guys at my gym that are getting ready for boot camp and a couple that are getting ready to deploy. I am working their fitness and standup. Why? Have you tried to grapple with someone wearing a vest and a ton of stuff you are going to be carrying? It is extremely difficult. I am not against the ground game. Quite the contrary. But if it were me, I don't want to grapple in a combat zone.
> 
> Rifle first.
> Pistol second.
> ...


 
searcher, Lord knows I agree with you. But my progression, since I'm with a cavalry unit and will be part of an Engineer unit would be thus:

1. Vehicluar weapons (M2, M240G, M249, Mk.19)
2. Rifle and Sidearm (If I have to dismount)
3. Knives/Improvised Weapons.
4. Fists, feet, shins and knees
5. Ground dead last. 

And with all the crap we wear outside the wire there's no way in hell I'd want to grapple. I'd want to know how so I could prevail in such a situation, but there is no way in hell I'd want to end up on the ground. 



> Well, some of the people here seem a little unhappy with what the Army does, but what about the Marines? Anybody got any complaints about MCMAP?


 
The concept behind MACP is a good concept, of preparing soldiers for hand to hand fighting, but I think the execution: e.g. 'curriculum' as it stands, could use a tweak or two to make it better. 

astrobiologist, the book wasn't titled H2H by Kid Peligro by any chance, was it?


----------



## searcher (Jul 12, 2009)

LoneRider, you make a very good case for your progression.

I also often forget that people havethe vehicle they MIGHT be in as a potential weapon.    I would much prefer letting the BG grapple with the tire/track then with myself.     Is this not taught in the MACP?     If not, it should be.


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 13, 2009)

Not that I recall, searcher, it is taught by the NCOs in that unofficial course they teach called 'dirty fighting 101' to any personnel newly arrived to the unit who will listen to them. 

Yeah, if I can use my vehicle/vehicle weapon systems before I dismount I damn well will do so...


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 13, 2009)

LoneRider said:


> Not that I recall, searcher, it is taught by the NCOs in that unofficial course they teach called 'dirty fighting 101' to any personnel newly arrived to the unit who will listen to them.
> 
> Yeah, if I can use my vehicle/vehicle weapon systems before I dismount I damn well will do so...



I would agree, although I don't think that "vehicle fighting" will ever become part of the curriculum.  Starting at weapons and working from there might happen though - at least in a better order.

I don't know if the Army has their own version or if it is unit training, but when we deploy with the Army, we go to a 4 week Convoy course where they teach stuff like that, i.e. how to leverage your vehicle against the enemy.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 13, 2009)

very good points made above...  

From what I have seen its not based on the "practical soldiering soldier"...If it was, the ground would be the last place they want to go...  On top of that, traing should be orchestrated with the gear that the "standard soldier" will have donned during battle.  M-16,ACH, OTV(SAPIS INCLUDED), NODS,  PISTOL, DROP LEG PUCHES,HOLSTERS ETC ....  It seems as if the training is more "plain clothes" geared and not for the soldier who is actually "soldiering"....     The training can still be combat fucused even without incorporating less lethal rifle-pistol techniques or going to the filed knife...   lets just say there are no tools and its straight hand to hand... one has to still consider the gear and everything else that will still be attached....    I am a firm believer in being able to fight on your back or stomach or sides but the end goal is to get back on your feet and ultimately stay there...   trying to incorporate a "ground game" or "grappling game'' into battlefield combatives is not very good news to me....


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 14, 2009)

As many of you have pointed out, it is VERY hard to grapple with what a modern soldier has to wear and carry as part of their normal duty gear.

The one aspect that has been neglected of the WHY so much emphasis placed on ground combatives for newer soldiers is one thing.  MINDSET....

The military uses the grappling to allow soldiers to go as full tilt as possible and create in them a fighting mindset of "never give up, no matter what".  This mindset will carry over to all the other areas of training as well.


----------



## yak sao (Jul 14, 2009)

the information that i've seen said that that 90% statistic comes from the cops. 
When a study was done on street self defense, they went to the group of people who had seen the most fights: cops.

But realize that as a cop, 90% of your fights would go to the ground because 1) you are trying to get the bad guy to get down on the ground
and 2) if he resists you can't (officially) punch or kick him, so it becomes a grappling match


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 14, 2009)

yak sao said:


> the information that i've seen said that that 90% statistic comes from the cops.
> When a study was done on street self defense, they went to the group of people who had seen the most fights: cops.
> 
> But realize that as a cop, 90% of your fights would go to the ground because 1) you are trying to get the bad guy to get down on the ground
> and 2) if he resists you can't (officially) punch or kick him, so it becomes a grappling match


Wrong.  Most of a cop's fights do go to the ground, because if we pin the bad guy to the ground, we take away a significant amount of their mobility and ability to resist and fight.

And we can definitely punch, kick, and otherwise strike, when the situation merits it.  You won't find many cops kicking very high, for lots of reasons, not least of which is the gun belt... but kicks and punches are certainly in the range of defensive tactics options.


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 14, 2009)

> The one aspect that has been neglected of the WHY so much emphasis placed on ground combatives for newer soldiers is one thing. MINDSET....


 
Wouldn't a program emphasizing practical defensive tactics progression with as much realism as safely possible, e.g. from standing to ground work just as well? If I'm not mistaken MCMAP does something along those lines for training.


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Jul 15, 2009)

The differnece is that MACP is very BJJ and MMA influenced and seeks to puttl from those worlds, a mistake overall.

MCMAP as it was founded , was influenced heavily by Koryo (Japanese Battlefeild arts), Judo, JUJUTSU, Karate and other Military Combatives and founded by a Marine Officer who looks at martial arts as something for combat first and not for sport.

MACP is good insofar as it gets soldiers doing something but it really should be a system that looks at the conditions a soldier faces and stars there.

 Even the Military becomes star struck by MMA and BJJ's success in sports and beach brawls.

 Heck, look how many units used to do TKD? Lots of soldiers got into Ninjutsu in the 80s and 90s.

 Fads effect them too, sadly.


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 15, 2009)

I think the Army Combatives program is a vast improvement over what recruits had been taught years prior, however I think it could do with a little tweaking. Starting with standup, with all the sundries the average infantryman carries into the field and then progressing to the ground fighting aspect would be the best bet in my humble opinion.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 15, 2009)

Using grappling to teach or instill mindset is training them to grapple... they will do what they train.    

I say dress em up in normal field gear and run em through an H2H kill house...   


excuse the outburst


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 16, 2009)

That's more or less what I think would be a far better course of instruction for young soldiers. But at any rate both MACP and MCMAP are far superior to the old LINE system with MCMAP having the clearest advantage for realistic training (I'll risk being crucified by my Army breathern for sacrilige by that one). 

Perhaps MACP can be vastly improved by emulating the USMC methodology of training. The Army officer corps has already done something similar in another venue with it's BOLC II (a six week equivalent to the Marine Corps TBS) and pushing an 'every soldier a rifleman' attitude into its ranks.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 16, 2009)

Whats disturbing is that the Navy doesnt even have h2h training let alone rifleman "training"...  unless you are part of NSW.  

I am not sure the airforce does either.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 16, 2009)

No, we don't, although the Air Force Combatives program is under development. 

I don't really find that disturbing though.  We are transitioning to a more "warrior-centric" force, due Army ops tempo and contracts, but our mission simply doesn't involve hand to hand combat.  Same with the Navy, we operate in different conditions.  Our basic trainings are different.  

The bottom line is this, when the Air Force or Navy has a mission need for h2h combat, we go to the Army and get the training that we need, which is why their program is of interest to us.


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 17, 2009)

BLACK LION/MBuzzy Lord knows I agree with you gents. I got some Defensive Tactics training when I went through Security Reaction Force training (one of the MA1s teaching us had a blackbelt in jiu jitsu and judo. It was hilarious to watch him through a mouthy TM1 eight feet across the mats with a picture perfect sacrifice throw). But the Navy/Air Force with the latest shift in mentality, could use a service wide H2H program. It'd benefit people and not to mention be a great way to relieve stress on ships.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 17, 2009)

LoneRider said:


> BLACK LION/MBuzzy Lord knows I agree with you gents. I got some Defensive Tactics training when I went through Security Reaction Force training (one of the MA1s teaching us had a blackbelt in jiu jitsu and judo. It was hilarious to watch him through a mouthy TM1 eight feet across the mats with a picture perfect sacrifice throw). But the Navy/Air Force with the latest shift in mentality, could use a service wide H2H program. It'd benefit people and not to mention be a great way to relieve stress on ships.


 

Couldnt agree more. 
It would be a definate plus to incorporate it in normal pt.  Even make proficiency quals out of it.  Hell make a ribbon out of it too.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 17, 2009)

uh huh, like we need more BS ribbons....

The AF Program is under development and has started to be taught at Basic, but due to the vast differences in structure of the Army and AF/Navy, it will be hard to propagate.  The Army's program is perpetuated by unit structure and training.  That is why it works so well.  The army has the H2H mentality.  That is something that will need to be built in the other services.  For the most part, the AF and Navy are not happy about having to do Army missions.  In fact, the ILO mission was supposed to END in 2007, but it has grown since then.  

Honestly, except for some curricular issues, the Army's program is the right thing for the right people.  While I think that weapons should go first and that full gear should be integrate more intimately, it does serve to build soldier's "warrior ethos" by putting them in a fighting mindset.


----------



## DergaSmash (Jul 17, 2009)

I'm not a fan of the Army Combatives. It was fun to learn and goundfighting is important to know and understand. But the Army likes to get things wrong, a lot. The man credited with creating the Modern Army Combatives has an interesting quote "The guy who's buddy shows up with a weapon first, wins." Interesting.

I was always curious that we are allies with Israel, why don't we adopt Krav Maga? It has been working for them for a long time! Use whatever is available first, fists and feet second, ground last. Makes sense to me.


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 17, 2009)

Well, my friend, allow me to argue the devil's advocate position. We have AARs in the military for a reason. So if enough soldiers, especially guys with big combatives backgrounds (former cops, etc...) put well stated AARs in, Big Army should be persuaded to tweak the program.

MACP is far superior to the old LINE system that used to be taught years ago. 

I think MACP is useful training, but could use a few tweaks as previous posters have mentioned. And you bring up a good AAR line yourself with: 



> Use whatever is available first, fists and feet second, ground last. Makes sense to me.


 
Now if enough of you guys bring this up post training AARs, especially if your combat arms, people will listen, somewhere in the chain of command.

Stay safe out there bro, from a fellow Sandbox deployer...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 18, 2009)

searcher said:


> I am currently helping a few guys at my gym that are getting ready for boot camp and a couple that are getting ready to deploy.    I am working their fitness and standup.    Why?     Have you tried to grapple with someone wearing a vest and a ton of stuff you are going to be carrying?    It is extremely difficult.    I am not against the ground game.    Quite the contrary.    But if it were me, I don't want to grapple in a combat zone.
> 
> Rifle first.
> Pistol second.
> ...



I agree absolutely.......but that begs the question, however, if you DO end up in a situation where an enemy combatant is at close quarters range, it's not likely he's going to be trading punches........my guess would be that he's either attempting to disarm, or attempting to put a knife in your gut, all while avoiding the end of the muzzle, which means he'll get extremely close, to grappling range.

I could be wrong, but I don't see a lot of punches or kicks being thrown in that format........the real question is how 80 pounds of gear is going to effect all of that.


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 18, 2009)

I'll take a stab (pun intended) at it. Well with the vest and helmet, the amount of areas he has to stab you are less. And as far as 'striking' goes, I'd say using the rifle as a striking tool (muzzle strikes, butt strokes, shoving with the center of the weapon) can work.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 18, 2009)

LoneRider said:


> I'll take a stab (pun intended) at it. Well with the vest and helmet, the amount of areas he has to stab you are less. And as far as 'striking' goes, I'd say using the rifle as a striking tool (muzzle strikes, butt strokes, shoving with the center of the weapon) can work.



That's true, leaving the only available targets for the knife the neck, underarm, groin and legs.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 18, 2009)

Military soft armor is not stab rated, maybe level 1 at best.  Also, it doesnt stop them from bricking a soldier in the face.  It also doesnt stop them from torching a soldier with a molotov cocktail or some other accelerant/flame combo.....


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 18, 2009)

I was referring strictly to stabbing type weapons. I in no way stated body armor makes you invulnerable.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 19, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Military soft armor is not stab rated, maybe level 1 at best.  Also, it doesnt stop them from bricking a soldier in the face.  It also doesnt stop them from torching a soldier with a molotov cocktail or some other accelerant/flame combo.....



If you're off base in a combat zone, no one is wearing soft armor though.  At the least, the plate in IBAs will stop stabs - not that it improves the situation, there are still plenty of targets, plus the bricking idea...and on top of that, the plates and IBA only serve to slow you down and make you less mobile.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 20, 2009)

I think it would serve better to work to manipulate field gear to the advantage of the end user.  All that gear means more weight and leverage behind your body weapons which equates to amplified trauma on target.
Takedowns, drops, dumps and throws can be amplified by securing field gear such as the vest, ach, packs, coms wires, drop leg pouches etc.  

It may not always transfer to every theatre since in Irag most combatants are not decked out like the 82nd airborne or infantry. But it helps to intstill a knowledge of the shortcomings of ones own gear and its advantages.


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 21, 2009)

Too true. But I do know the Army's AAR system does work. Good units always send their AARs to the appropriate authorities for action and a lot of improvements are coming as a result of them (for instance the IOTV, which is far superior in terms of distributing all the weight of SAPI and the like than the OTV (or Interceptor Vest)).


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jul 22, 2009)

Gaius Julius Caesar said:


> The differnece is that MACP is very BJJ and MMA influenced and seeks to puttl from those worlds, a mistake overall.
> 
> MCMAP as it was founded , was influenced heavily by Koryo (Japanese Battlefeild arts), Judo, JUJUTSU, Karate and other Military Combatives and founded by a Marine Officer who looks at martial arts as something for combat first and not for sport.
> 
> ...



Actually, Aikido was a major contributor as well for MCMAP


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jul 22, 2009)

LoneRider said:


> I'll take a stab (pun intended) at it. Well with the vest and helmet, the amount of areas he has to stab you are less. And as far as 'striking' goes, I'd say using the rifle as a striking tool (muzzle strikes, butt strokes, shoving with the center of the weapon) can work.



No way would I trust my vest to stop a stab wound.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jul 22, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I agree absolutely.......but that begs the question, however, if you DO end up in a situation where an enemy combatant is at close quarters range, it's not likely he's going to be trading punches........my guess would be that he's either attempting to disarm, or attempting to put a knife in your gut, all while avoiding the end of the muzzle, which means he'll get extremely close, to grappling range.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I don't see a lot of punches or kicks being thrown in that format........the real question is how 80 pounds of gear is going to effect all of that.



Uh... add a lot of power to a hook punch? but you make a point. Even if I'm clinched or grappling, though, my chances of survival are higher if I can stay OFF the ground.

And I have trained in full gear to figure out how it'd affect. Punches are relatively fine, kicks and grappling drastically impaired, and clinch is reasonably sound.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 22, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> If you're off base in a combat zone, no one is wearing soft armor though.  At the least, the plate in IBAs will stop stabs - not that it improves the situation, there are still plenty of targets, plus the bricking idea...and on top of that, the plates and IBA only serve to slow you down and make you less mobile.



There's some mention of a 2003 knife attack on an Army officer in an article referenced here. His main injury came from tripping and falling as he evaded the attack, apparently.


----------



## Skpotamus (Jul 22, 2009)

I think the reason they do the grappling first is to allow the soldiers to train all out without risk of injury.  It's a lot easier to go balls out while grappling without injury than it is to go even lightly striking without injury.  This promotes going all out in their training and gets them better conditioned.  You can see the military doing the same thing in WW2 with some of the things they were taught then, like the infamous Timetable of Death and the ridiculously short times to incapacitate.  it instilled confidence in their techniques, while not necessarily being accurate.  

Most of the chokes the program teaches work standing as well as on the ground.  Teaching a soldier to try to choke his opponent will probably serve him better than having him break his hand punching at a guy in full kit and hitting his helmet.  

You can grapple anywhere (my buddy at fort campbell? said they would have people randomly grapple in different environments, regardless of garb and location).  You can't punch, kick, knee, and elbow with any type of power without protective gear.  Using weapons in H2H is a similar situation, you have to back off and go light, or risk injury.  

Not saying I agree with it (I personally think they should use more firearms for CQB work), but I think I can see them reasoning this way.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 22, 2009)

You can train to strike targets without injuring your partner. It is a mutual relation ship in which you promis not to actually go full on and injure them and in turn they will do thier best to pretend they are injured.  It should be done slow and smooth as all training should be done.  People forsake accuracy for speed out of fear.  
I see reference to punches and kicks which alerts my radar again. I see no use for elastic movement found in striking and retracting on impact. I see the benefit of puuting hard parts into thier soft parts projecting ones entire mass through the target area. I also see great benefit in striking to get a break and a dump, drop or throw....Some of the biggest injuries served hand to hand will come from impacting the ground or by utilizing the earth as a blunt object.  Also I see a great benefit in learning how to strike opponents that are on the ground... not trying to wrestle them. I would rather drop a knee on thier bladder and palm thier face when they sit up from the trauma... or  deliver a well placed kick to the live to get them to curl over so I can stomp the neck....    just some ideas and some more mindless rambling


take care out there guys.


----------



## Skpotamus (Jul 22, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> You can train to strike targets without injuring your partner. It is a mutual relation ship in which you promis not to actually go full on and injure them and in turn they will do thier best to pretend they are injured. It should be done slow and smooth as all training should be done. People forsake accuracy for speed out of fear.
> I see reference to punches and kicks which alerts my radar again. I see no use for elastic movement found in striking and retracting on impact. I see the benefit of puuting hard parts into thier soft parts projecting ones entire mass through the target area. I also see great benefit in striking to get a break and a dump, drop or throw....Some of the biggest injuries served hand to hand will come from impacting the ground or by utilizing the earth as a blunt object. Also I see a great benefit in learning how to strike opponents that are on the ground... not trying to wrestle them. I would rather drop a knee on thier bladder and palm thier face when they sit up from the trauma... or deliver a well placed kick to the live to get them to curl over so I can stomp the neck.... just some ideas and some more mindless rambling
> 
> take care out there guys.


 

Thats kind of my reasoning for them NOT doing the striking as heavily and why grapplers were able to dominate the challenge matches.  Strikers have to pull back their power, speed and contact to not damage their partners.  Meaning that they are going less than full speed and power when training with a partner most of the time.  Grapplers can go all out, full speed and power when applying thier techniques.  As can their partners when resisting, the feeling of making something work against live, full force resistance lets them get a lot more quality training in a shorter time.  

You can get around this in striking by using pad drills, but you have to double the amount of training time to teach students how to hold and feed to mimic real life encounters and get some sense of realism in the pad drills.  This usually takes a few months to get down.  You can get a grappling move down in an hour if you rep the hell out of it.  

Everybody knows how much it sucks to get a holder that doesn't know what they are doing, you might as well be shadow sparring.  With grappling, all you need for a partner to know is that they are supposed to grab, push, pull and squeeze as hard as they can to stop you from doing what you are trying to do.


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 23, 2009)

If it does go to H2H for me (really bad, because that means my gun trucks are down, QRF has also gotten stomped on, weapons are down, and the like) I'll use WFF (whatever f---ing works). I'll likely go for striking with either my weapon(s), improvised weapons, knives or going after vulnerable areas.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 23, 2009)

Skpotamus said:


> Thats kind of my reasoning for them NOT doing the striking as heavily and why grapplers were able to dominate the challenge matches. Strikers have to pull back their power, speed and contact to not damage their partners. Meaning that they are going less than full speed and power when training with a partner most of the time. Grapplers can go all out, full speed and power when applying thier techniques. As can their partners when resisting, the feeling of making something work against live, full force resistance lets them get a lot more quality training in a shorter time.
> 
> You can get around this in striking by using pad drills, but you have to double the amount of training time to teach students how to hold and feed to mimic real life encounters and get some sense of realism in the pad drills. This usually takes a few months to get down. You can get a grappling move down in an hour if you rep the hell out of it.
> 
> Everybody knows how much it sucks to get a holder that doesn't know what they are doing, you might as well be shadow sparring. With grappling, all you need for a partner to know is that they are supposed to grab, push, pull and squeeze as hard as they can to stop you from doing what you are trying to do.


 
Thety were most likely being dominated because they still utilized "elasticity" in thier kicking and punching and they are looking for places like the face or some other social area of fisticuffs which is probably why they are seemingly holding back.   If one understands the anatomy and the physiology behind it then there would be no reason to hold back. What may seem like holding back or pulling punches may just be a lack of understanding of targeting and striking with weight and mass.  What you find is that it doesnt take much force to drop a man to his knees with a well placed elbow to the trapezius or brachial plexus and not even come close to the vertebrae.  Fingers in eyes sockets move even the strongest heads... finger strikes to the anus will make a man flop like a fish and there goes his arm bar(got me out of a tough one once).   
Training to grapple and use strength, size and speed to overcome an adversary sets the mindset that there is equality in combat when there is none...zero.   There is alwasy someone bigger. stronger and faster and thats why learning and training in an unconventional ferocious manner is so beneficial becuase it negates the bigger stronger faster all together.  
All men are equal in the sense that they can all be injured, traumatized, broken and killed.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 23, 2009)

I am not saying there is a right and wrong here btw.  I understand both sides as I trained that way for a long time.


----------



## shihansmurf (Jul 23, 2009)

I'll weigh in on this topic as I've been taught levels 1 and 2. I don't agree with all of the logic that went into designing the program but I can relate was was explained to me by various instructors.

1. Hand to Hand is a tertiary skillset for all of us, MP's being an exception. The intent of the Combative program isn't to create kung fu fighting machines, but to give people tools that will enable them to survive violent encounters untill they can re-engage with their weapon system.  The combatives are also used to foster a "warrior" mindset in a soldier.

2. With the amount of gear and its weight dispersal it is remarkably easy for one of us to lose our balance should we find ourselves struggling with an assailant. Now, I personally think the methods for passing the guard that they teach don't work in armor, but that is a chunk of the reasoning.

3. Ground work and grappling is taught first due to the fact that most people grow up wrestling with friends and siblings and the inate familiarity of the skillset maps well to the skills taught in level 1. In addition to that it is much safer to teach grappeling and ground work to the point of fully resisting opponents to a large group of people with as wide ranging levels of ability and fitness as entry level soldiers. Ground work also requires no safety equipment,although most posts do have sand pit(some have combative pits that use finely shredded tires-its really comfortable). When we start adding striking in level 2, there is reticence on the part of most students to really throw hard shots at each other. There is almost never that same fear of full on wrestling.

4. Later level incorporate weapon disarms and much more striking but the focus is always on recovery to dominant position so as to be able to bring a weapon system to bear. As soldiers we are much better at shooting people, after all, and combatives are a last ditch effort. MP's work under a different set of restrictions and learn a different methodology of hand to hand that I, frankly, and not privy to having nevey worked with them aside from basic riot control training during QRF train up. 

If you are a martial artist,  I think that you are not going to find much in the combatives system that is going to make you stand up and say WOW!
Like I stated earlier, hand to hand is a tertiary skill for us, keep that in mind, and take what the Army(and the Marines with MCMAP) teaches in that light. The goals that the Army has for its martial arts may not be what you have for yours.

Mark


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 23, 2009)

Understood.

Take care out there guys.


----------



## LoneRider (Jul 24, 2009)

> 1. Hand to Hand is a tertiary skillset for all of us, MP's being an exception. The intent of the Combative program isn't to create kung fu fighting machines, but to give people tools that will enable them to survive violent encounters untill they can re-engage with their weapon system. The combatives are also used to foster a "warrior" mindset in a soldier.


 
Strange. I'd figured Infantry, Scouts, SF, and others would have that as a major skill set as well.



> Like I stated earlier, hand to hand is a tertiary skill for us, keep that in mind, and take what the Army(and the Marines with MCMAP) teaches in that light. The goals that the Army has for its martial arts may not be what you have for yours.


 
I understand that. I learn the skill sets as required, but also apply what I've learned in other MAs as well to subsequent training sessions and just keep discussion/practical training going.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 24, 2009)

Truthfully when I look around I think the Pekiti Tirsia system incorporated into the Force Recon Marines in the Philippines is a better example of a functional military hand to hand and weapons system.  Just throwing it out there!


----------



## Aikironin (Aug 17, 2009)

Well to touch on what Shihansmurf was saying. I started out in 75th Ranger regiment when Larsen was just beginning his program of grappling to the army.  And he makes some valid points in his methodology. 
1. No one wins a war based upon how good thier hand to hand skills are, but the skills that make someone a good hand to hand guy, are the same skills that win wars, namely the desire to close distance and engage the enemy.
2.  The winner of a hand to hand battle is the guy whose friend shows up first with a gun.

Now his marketing has changed a bit since 98 when I first met him, and the insistence that BJJ was going to be a "battlefield art" has changed to point 1 above.  Which is valid, as currently the military is recruiting vast majority of soldiers who have, never been in a fight, didn't play any contact sports, perhaps raised by a single mom.  And combine this with the "oprahfication" of the culture and you have an unaggressive soldier who has never tasted his or her own blood.  No wonder PTSD is through the roof!

Is the Combatives program an end all be all, by no means.  But is it a massive step forward, yes.  As previous to Larsen's involvement, there wasn't one at all, it was whatever local instructor or local expert taught at the Unit level, which may or may not have been command endorsed.  But no simple way of taking 45 recruits and in 4 hours time, making them a lot better off, than say, trying to spend equivalent time, teaching kicks, blocks and punches.


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Aug 17, 2009)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Truthfully when I look around I think the Pekiti Tirsia system incorporated into the Force Recon Marines in the Philippines is a better example of a functional military hand to hand and weapons system. Just throwing it out there!


 

 I know a Marine who did that.

 I crosstrain with one of Gaje's students, Dave Wink, Pikiti Tarsia is great stuff.

 I like what 1st SF Group was doing before the war.

 The would train 2 days a week with a BJJ instructor than 1 day with a FMA/IMA guy, then the next week the would train twice with the FMA/IMA guy and then once with the BJJ guy. 

 they had (or have) a good mix their, weapons, strikes, and Grappling.
That would burn in using a malfunctioned weapon as an impact weapon before going empty hand (Unlike the case of the Army troop who through his gun down and double legged a man who ended up stabbing him), knife skills and grappling if it all goes to Hell.


----------



## LoneRider (Aug 17, 2009)

> Well to touch on what Shihansmurf was saying. I started out in 75th Ranger regiment when Larsen was just beginning his program of grappling to the army. And he makes some valid points in his methodology.
> 1. No one wins a war based upon how good thier hand to hand skills are, but the skills that make someone a good hand to hand guy, are the same skills that win wars, namely the desire to close distance and engage the enemy.
> 2.  The winner of a hand to hand battle is the guy whose friend shows up first with a gun.



 Nice perspective and I do agree with you to a point. Is it not also true that soldiers will fall back on training under pressure or in battle. So if a soldier is trained in only ground fighting will he thus not resort to grappling as Gaius Julius Ceasar's reference states: 



> That would burn in using a malfunctioned weapon as an impact weapon before going empty hand (Unlike the case of the Army troop who through his gun down and double legged a man who ended up stabbing him), knife skills and grappling if it all goes to Hell.



 Aikironin, I'm not totally disregarding your point but I think GJC's most recent point brings some interesting approaches to H2H training.


----------



## Aikironin (Aug 17, 2009)

Lone Rider, no disrespect taken, insofar as the soldier tackling the guy who ended up stabbing him, haven't heard that particular, story and will give JGC the benefit of the doubt and assume it is true.  Tackling a guy traditionally is the act of an unskilled opponent, and more often than not, as LTC David Grossman states, Soldiers don't rise to their level of training but sink to it.  Secondly, you prove my first point regarding that BJJ or Army combatives as a "battlefield" art may not be the appropriate choice for that particular situation, much like bringing the knife to the gunfight.

If the soldier lacks the inherent will to win, Not just the will to survive, than any technique will fail in a critical incident.  Much like the Olympic style TKD guy I knew, who got sucker punched in England and whose only response was to tackle his assailant.  

Real fights are three dimensional in the sense that they are physiological, psychological and emotional facets to each altercation.  If one cannot commit to all three facets, then they are outnumbered by their own doubt.


----------



## LoneRider (Sep 4, 2009)

Interesting Akironin that you should bring this up. Personally I believe the MCMAP system and the Systema/Battle Sambo systems are good real world hand to hand combat training. 

Compared to the old LINE system which I've had some exposure to I do like the MACP system I just think a few tweaks could make it more effective.


----------



## Aikironin (Sep 4, 2009)

LoneRider said:


> Interesting Akironin that you should bring this up. Personally I believe the MCMAP system and the Systema/Battle Sambo systems are good real world hand to hand combat training.
> 
> Compared to the old LINE system which I've had some exposure to I do like the MACP system I just think a few tweaks could make it more effective.


 

Interesting that you bring up Systema, it started to become somewhat popular in Aikido circles awhile back due to Stan Pranin and the Aiki Expos, and being a DT guy and interested in "real world" applications, I picked up some DVD's and was totally not impressed.  In fact I became some what cynical on it.  Also picked up some "combat Sambo" and was interested in what they had to offer.

I see Systema as hard sell for DT instructors in Military/LEO work, but Sambo as an easier sell.  Those two target audiences don't really have the time in their training schedules to devote to H2H, in the military it makes some sense, as weapons based systems are tantamount to their mission.  In Law enforcement it makes NO SENSE whatsoever as hands on a suspect is such a commonplace circumstance it begs the question as to why not?  But again Police Departments have X hours of inservice a year, and take away those hours for Cultural diversity, Cultural Awareness, Sensitivity training, Sexual Harrasment, Hugging puppies training, and so on and so on, they may be lucky to get 4-8 hours a year.  So styles like Systema, Sambo, Aikido, BJJ or whatever need to be pared down to gross motor skill movements, retainable and able to be performed in full gear.

Again, is MCMAP and Army Combatives the end all be all, by no means, but it is a step towards codifying a system that can as you say be tweaked and revisited based upon Soldier/Marine feedback from the field.


----------



## chinto (Sep 9, 2009)

I think that the reason for so much grappling is that they see it as something that they can both condition with and get less injury's with. I also see it as some kind of thing of  well the "  MMA sport competitors do it and it must be good" thing in there to.

now with a pack, and weapons and ammo and things I want to strike first, lock and brake and grapple standing, but on the ground last! 
 First of all because just like on the street they come in groups on the battle field.   Second, because with all that gear on, and my weapon and  things I would not want to be rolling around on the ground where a less skilled man might not be so encumbered and have an advantage that way and it would not be as great when standing.  but the main reason is that while I am down there with him, any one, his buddy or just some one who does not like GI's can kick my kidneys, skull, face and spine in with out effort.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 9, 2009)

chinto said:


> I think that the reason for so much grappling is that they see it as something that they can both condition with and get less injury's with. I also see it as some kind of thing of  well the "  MMA sport competitors do it and it must be good" thing in there to.
> 
> now with a pack, and weapons and ammo and things I want to strike first, lock and brake and grapple standing, but on the ground last!
> First of all because just like on the street they come in groups on the battle field.   Second, because with all that gear on, and my weapon and  things I would not want to be rolling around on the ground where a less skilled man might not be so encumbered and have an advantage that way and it would not be as great when standing.  but the main reason is that while I am down there with him, any one, his buddy or just some one who does not like GI's can kick my kidneys, skull, face and spine in with out effort.



Or stick a bayonet or knife in you or well just shoot you.  Grappling on the ground on a battlefield should be a last resort.


----------



## SocorroLDM (Nov 30, 2009)

I understand what you are saying.  I am a Level II MACP Instructor.  The Level I and II course are all ground fighting techniques.  As a MACP instructor you can also teach the standup techniques as well as the knife and stick techniques, it is all up to the instructor.


----------



## Draven (Dec 2, 2009)

LoneRider said:


> As a Navy Individual Augmentee the subject was part of our training at FT Sill, OK before we deployed almost a year ago. I recall our instructors stating that 90% of fights go to the ground.
> 
> Now I have trained in various MAs throughout my life, the most practical training received thus far before MACP was at Centerline Martial Arts Academy in Neptune Beach, FL. I recall one teacher of mine there, a former cop, saying that statistic of ground fights is true if the combatants don't know what they're doing.
> 
> MACP tends to start with training in groundfighting first then working up to standup fighting, based on the above logic. Far be it from me to question Army training methods, but wouldn't it be more practical to teach how not to go to the ground (i.e. practical takedown defenses and the like) before teaching groundfighting? Any thoughts on that?


 
I think the 90% rule is 100% BS, I'm fond of saying "90% of all fights go to the ground if your the loser." By this I would like to point out that a) no such statistic has ever been taken but anyone and anywhere; its a marketing slogan taken from the Gracies and nothing scientifically researched, and b) allot of the cases of fights going to the ground under real world conditions is mostly one person stapping on the other & the many time the guy on the ground is unable to defend himself due to lack of contiousness. Ever hear of a curbie?

As for the Basic Level of training; I disagree with the heavy focus on ground fighting period (did my 11B time in Basic and MAC wasn't upto to par for me) Personal I think their needs to be a basic set of stand-up, striking, throws and takedowns & groundfighting that should be taught initially, from that you can expand those techniques and fill in the gaps at more advanced stages. Takedown defense would be an filled in subject. 

Under realistic terms you could/should be able to seriously injure an opponent in stand up combat without going to the ground and if you go to the ground you should be able to end the fight in seconds and get back up, given that you caused some injury before going to the ground or by going to the ground. Yes, I believe you should try to cause serious injury before or during the attempt to go to the ground. I think stand up fighting is just as important as groundfighting and both need to be enbraced to make a complete system.


----------



## Skpotamus (Dec 2, 2009)

Draven said:


> I think the 90% rule is 100% BS, I'm fond of saying "90% of all fights go to the ground if your the loser." By this I would like to point out that a) no such statistic has ever been taken but anyone and anywhere; its a marketing slogan taken from the Gracies and nothing scientifically researched, and b) allot of the cases of fights going to the ground under real world conditions is mostly one person stapping on the other & the many time the guy on the ground is unable to defend himself due to lack of contiousness. Ever hear of a curbie?
> 
> As for the Basic Level of training; I disagree with the heavy focus on ground fighting period (did my 11B time in Basic and MAC wasn't upto to par for me) Personal I think their needs to be a basic set of stand-up, striking, throws and takedowns & groundfighting that should be taught initially, from that you can expand those techniques and fill in the gaps at more advanced stages. Takedown defense would be an filled in subject.
> 
> Under realistic terms you could/should be able to seriously injure an opponent in stand up combat without going to the ground and if you go to the ground you should be able to end the fight in seconds and get back up, given that you caused some injury before going to the ground or by going to the ground. Yes, I believe you should try to cause serious injury before or during the attempt to go to the ground. I think stand up fighting is just as important as groundfighting and both need to be enbraced to make a complete system.



http://ejmas.com/jnc/2007jnc/jncart_Leblanc_0701.html
This is the LAPD study the gracie stats were supposedly  taken from.  
Nearly 2/3's of the fights the officers got into resulted both teh officer and subject on the ground.  

Bruce Siddle did a study (same link, farther down) asking how many times officers had someone try to take them to the ground.  Over half had someone try to push, pull, or tackle them to the ground.  

Another study someone did with something like 300 street fights, less than half went to the ground (42%) with both people down.  72% had one person go down.  What was most interesting:  of those that hit the ground first, 59% lost, 33% had no clear "winner".  
http://jiujitsu365.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/do-most-fights-go-to-the-ground-research-i-conducted/

So while learning to fight on the ground is a good thing IMHO (at least from the perspective of how to defend and get back to your feet), the 95% thing is BS.  

Now, if you have the skill level of say, a Gracie in a streetfight, probably 95% of your fights do go to the ground, and you probably win them all as long as they stay one on one (you have buddies there to keep it "fair").  
where fights happen regularly.  

I think they do it (train groundfighting first) because it conditions people quite well, it's pretty easy to learn, and it installs greater confidence than the crap they used to teach them that didn't work all that well.


----------



## Draven (Dec 2, 2009)

Skpotamus said:


> http://ejmas.com/jnc/2007jnc/jncart_Leblanc_0701.html
> This is the LAPD study the gracie stats were supposedly taken from.
> Nearly 2/3's of the fights the officers got into resulted both teh officer and subject on the ground.
> 
> ...


 
The LEO study is worthless as LEOs have been training in "restraint techniques" for the past 50 years if not longer & generally try to bring an assailant to the ground to be restrained. There is even a subset of Kodokan Judo that focuses on LEO Restraining Methods used by LEOs. The Less then half study & the over half study pretty much go with what I learned in sport jujitsu back in the 90s its fifty.

As for the less effective stuff in military H2H you'd have to be specific, there because I have found some aspects of older systems of combatives to be far better then the current system.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 2, 2009)

Draven said:


> I think the 90% rule is 100% BS, I'm fond of saying "90% of all fights go to the ground if your the loser." By this I would like to point out that a) no such statistic has ever been taken but anyone and anywhere; its a marketing slogan taken from the Gracies and nothing scientifically researched, and b) allot of the cases of fights going to the ground under real world conditions is mostly one person stapping on the other & the many time the guy on the ground is unable to defend himself due to lack of contiousness. Ever hear of a curbie?
> 
> As for the Basic Level of training; I disagree with the heavy focus on ground fighting period (did my 11B time in Basic and MAC wasn't upto to par for me) Personal I think their needs to be a basic set of stand-up, striking, throws and takedowns & groundfighting that should be taught initially, from that you can expand those techniques and fill in the gaps at more advanced stages. Takedown defense would be an filled in subject.
> 
> Under realistic terms you could/should be able to seriously injure an opponent in stand up combat without going to the ground and if you go to the ground you should be able to end the fight in seconds and get back up, given that you caused some injury before going to the ground or by going to the ground. Yes, I believe you should try to cause serious injury before or during the attempt to go to the ground. I think stand up fighting is just as important as groundfighting and both need to be enbraced to make a complete system.


Actually, it is scientifically researched.  There are just quite a few details left out when you simply the research done to a single sentence.  The numbers came from analysis of LAW ENFORCEMENT encounters, and many of those do indeed go to the ground because the specific goal is to subdue and arrest the person, and taking a resisting subject to the ground eliminates many avenues of escape.  The Gracies simply latched onto the briefest summary to make their claims in support of their system...


----------



## Draven (Dec 3, 2009)

Its just me but thats bordering on false advertising and comes close to down right lying. But, one my many issues is that I have a very serious distaste for martial arts as a commercial enterprise I think it takes away a great deal & creates several problems as well. The case in point.

As for the Modern Army Combatives, I think the best bet would be a mix of Kill or Get Killed's vital point striking methods and the current MAC program. Of course one of the reasons I left the military was the political nature of every action taken. I often see the political nature of using the Gracie system far more commonly then the merit of the system, and its a good system. I actually liked the older LINE system but think it rarely got taught properly.


----------



## jarrod (Dec 3, 2009)

as i've said before, troops around the world & throughout history have trained in sport combat.  it can instill conditioning, mental toughness, & aggression.  the actual techniques are secondary.  

jf


----------



## Draven (Dec 3, 2009)

I hate to tell you this but conditioning, mental toughness & aggression don't count for much if you don't have the technical skills to back it all up. More so, I'm not arguing the effectiveness of the material presented only the over all worth of this material as its presented. The issue as I see it isn't the groundfighting material (thats all sound technique-wise) but the lack of effective material on striking and stand up grappling techniques is an issue for me.

Being proficient in one's tasks, whether its marksmanship, battle drills or hand-to-hand combatives simply doesn't matter because one is conditioned, aggressive & mental tough, is the wrong answer. 

The simplist response to this is that conditioning is not based on combatives training but morning PT every morning. Aggression is good except that the aggression of other soldiers; such as the Viet Cong & Chinese soldiers in Viet Nam, as well as that of the insergents in Iraq & Affgahnistan, did little against the superior battlefield skills of US Soldiers. Mental Toughness is likewise a similar matter you can be mentally tough but a physical damage will still cause an injury and the worse the injury and more likely death. Being proficient in your skills whether small teams tactics, hand-to-hand combatives techniques or marksmanship might be better with Mental Toughness, Conditioning & Aggression but it doesn't replace them.


----------



## Hudson69 (Dec 3, 2009)

I can only speak from an LE Combatives standpoint (I do have a copy of the Army Combatives manual) but the whole; most fights go to the ground theory is prevalent with my department.

Luckily though we understand that a fight can go to the ground but the ground is not a good place to be; too much chance of a bandit having a "friend."  This means that we can train as much to avoid going to the ground (against single or multiple opponents - worst case scenario) as to winning a fight on the ground.

If you are looking for something will work well with a military type of combatives that is probably easy to find you might want to look at Krav Maga?


----------



## Draven (Dec 4, 2009)

Well the thing about the army combatives system is that there where several issues with combatives from the previous systems and the modernized systems. As with anything the DOD there is a political component to the choice. The reliance on Gracie Combatives (GC for short) for the bulk of the MAC system is based on some political issues as well as some practical ones as well.

Political Issues effecting the choice;
1. The bulk of wonnabe tough guys who join the military right out of high school are heavy supporters and admirers of MMA competition. Its the New Tough Guy sport as it were.

2. Most of the high school crowd who are recruited into the military simply lack the real world experience at fighting, hence the basis for appealing to the MMA imagery. I personally think it's less the sport and more the individual but hey...

3. Its a ready made system, that doesn't require the Army to research and adapt previous systems, which some units & branchs still do. The USMC MCMAP uses Gracie Combatives as well but included additional source info to make the system more well rounded.

Personally I think taking the striking techniques from kill or get Killed and combining it with the current US Army manual gets a good blend. I also think the MCMAP is better if only more well rounded, including techniques from Gracie Juijutsu, Combat Jujitsu, Karate & Kick Boxing, plus more info on the use of weapons.


----------



## MattNinjaZX-14 (Dec 4, 2009)

The Modern Army Combatives Program effective Feburary 2009 can be seen here:

*FM 3-25.150 Combatives - 2009 Pt I*

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21005335/FM-3-25-150-Combatives-2009-Pt-I

*FM 3-25.150 Combatives - 2009 Pt II* 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21002372/FM-3-25-150-Combatives-2009-Pt-II


----------



## jarrod (Dec 4, 2009)

agree to disagree, draven.  but you realize we lost vietnam right?  & i hate to tell you this, but all the technical skill in the world won't help you if you are too tired or mentally beaten to execute.  technique shouldn't be disregarded, but if you have a limited amount of time to get someone ready to fight, there is only so much technique you can develop.  

jf


----------



## Draven (Dec 4, 2009)

MattNinjaZX-14 said:


> The Modern Army Combatives Program effective Feburary 2009 can be seen here:
> 
> *FM 3-25.150 Combatives - 2009 Pt I*
> 
> ...


 
New stuff looks better but I just glossed over it it looks like a the same stuff but with pictures. Where the older manual just slapped some stuff from the old and the new together. I'll reserve my judgement until I get a better look at it.



jarrod said:


> agree to disagree, draven. but you realize we lost vietnam right? & i hate to tell you this, but all the technical skill in the world won't help you if you are too tired or mentally beaten to execute. technique shouldn't be disregarded, but if you have a limited amount of time to get someone ready to fight, there is only so much technique you can develop.
> 
> jf


 
I'm guessing you never been in the military, right? There is this thing in the Army called sergeant's time where every thurday NCOs conduct combat focused PT; Combatives Sparring, Pugil Sticks, Bayonet Courses, Ruck Marches, etc. if you been in a year you've had plenty of times to work on combatives. Plus guys with pior training in MA are allowed to teach from various systems during  that time or in their free time. My old squad had training in MAC, Sport Jujitsu, Muay Thai, LINE Training, TKD, Hapkido, Boxing & Karate between myself the other team leader & a few guys who where studying TKD, Hapkido & Boxed prior to and during their enlistment.

As for Viet Nam; we lost the politics of the war but won every battle. So what? Soldiers aren't politicians & losing political support back home doesn't mean losing the fight on the battlefield.


----------



## jarrod (Dec 5, 2009)

i was in the marine corps.  

MMA is a good, general introduction to the fight game for your basic-trained soldiers & marines who may not have much MA exposure IMO.  if they want to focus on other arts from there that is just terrific & they should have every opportunity to do so.  it also gives those with another background exposure to a different ranges they may not be used to.  

maybe i'm a slow learner, but a year just doesn't seem like that much time to develop technique for someone with no prior MA experience.  

i wasn't saying anything against those who served in vietnam; that war wasn't lost by the people in the field.  but the mental toughness of the VC still allowed them to carve out a communist regime, even with our brave veterans & superior technology.  

jf


----------



## Draven (Dec 5, 2009)

Well thats what your missing a) we won every fire fight in Viet Nam because of higher proficiency of skill sets & b) we only lost the war because our politicians failed us and our soldiers. Just like Nam we see Al-queada crossing the boarder to Pakistan to regroup & unlike Nam we are currently conducting air strikes into Pakistan to reach them. We allowed the commies to carve out their regime because our politicians (not the guys on the ground) were weak willed.

Now I might disagree with you on the year thing, first off few military men world wide trained extensively for extreme close combat or hand-to-hand combat regularly. Those who do are the more poor countries or those with a heavy MA culture; Korea, China, Japan, Russia, the Balkan Nations ect.

As for a year being enough time, the Gracies claim that Gracie Combatives can teach you basic proficency within 2 weeks. You get that in basic & then have a year of sergeants time training to suppliment that training. Plus what soldoers do on their own, most of the MMA fans trained on their own in the same GC format that the Gracies say will make you a "GJJ Blue Belt."

My issue with the Army stuff isn't the MMA, I'd love to see some Muay Thai or something with a better striking base added to make it more rounded, plus some basic instruction on throws, takedowns & sweeps. Most Army Soldiers are taught nothing but bare bones ground fighting & don't even cover the whole manual. Even then the politics of the MAC is that it isn't intended to teach combat skills but (from FM 3-25.150, 1-2 PURPOSES OF COMBATIVES TRAINING) "More importantly, combatives training helps to instill courage and self-confidence. With competence comes the understanding of controlled aggression and the ability to remain focused while under duress. Training in combatives includes hard and arduous physical training that is, at the same time, mentally demanding and carries over to other military pursuits. The overall effect of combatives training is-

<LI itxtvisited="1">The culmination of a successful physical fitness program, enhancing individual and unit strength, flexibility, balance, and cardiorespiratory fitness. 
Building personal courage, self confidence, self-discipline, and esprit de corps."
Not much is said about killing the enemy at close range. It talks about the purpose of hand-to-hand combatives being used to condition the soldier with self-confidence, personal courage, and so on. Yet, everything in Military culture is about doing just that; Ruck Marchs, Bayonet Courses, FTXs (Field Training Exercises), Simulated Combat Exercises, & so on. 

Many times & especially for Infantry Soldiers/Marines this training occurs during an 8 hour work with FTXs lasting from 30 to 90 days. So then where does the need for mental toughness via MMA based training have a need in the Military Culture?

Now if you look at the MCRP 3-02B: Marine Corps Martial Arts under Introduction, section 1. Purpose it reads; "Marines are also engaged in many military operations other then war, such as peace keeping missions & noncombantant evacuations, where deadly force may not be authorized. During non-combatives engagements, Marines must decide if a situation warrents the use of deadly force." The same paragraph goes on to state plainly "To make the right decision, Marines must understand both the lethal & non-lethal cloase combat techniques needed to handle the situation responsibly without escalating the level of violence unnecessarily."

There is already a fundamental difference in that MCMAP, unlike US Army MAC, is based on the ability to subdue or possibly kill an enemy in combat. MCMAP unlike MAC makes use of closed fists, knife hand strikes, palm strikes & finger jabs. Standing joint locks and breaks plus the additional ground fighting techniques. Also the MAC's Hand-to-Hand Philosophy towards lethal force is (as per FM 3-25.150 Chapter 9 Group Tactics, Section I Lethal Force Scenarios) is "The fundamental truth of hand-to-hand fighting is that the winner will be the one whose buddies show up first with a weapon." MCMAP's lethal force philosophy is explained Overview of Close Combat Section, 1. Purpose of Close Combat; "Close Combat is the physical confrontation between two or more opponents. It involves armed & unarmed & lethal & non-lethal fighting techniques that range from forced compliance to deadly force."

So again, at what point do soldiers need to rely on a MA system for dicipline, mental toughness & so on when the whole life style and military culture encourages and teachs such things? 
Why is that Marines (who also draw some technical assets from BJJ) advocated using potentially lethal force & have far better striking & vital target point training for those strikes to make them effective, yet the Army ignores that possible added skill set?


----------



## jarrod (Dec 5, 2009)

Draven said:


> So again, at what point do soldiers need to rely on a MA system for dicipline, mental toughness & so on when the whole life style and military culture encourages and teachs such things?
> Why is that Marines (who also draw some technical assets from BJJ) advocated using potentially lethal force & have far better striking & vital target point training for those strikes to make them effective, yet the Army ignores that possible added skill set?



let's just skip the whole vietnam thing for the sake of brevity, staying on topic, & not beating our heads against each others walls.

as for the first part, mental toughness comes in many varieties.  everyone has their hang ups.  i did great at firing drills, h2h, humps, & all that crap.  but i hated swim qualifications to the point of near panic.  but sometimes marines end up in the water, so i had to learn to deal with my phobia & get through it.  some people just fall apart when someone is trying to beat the **** out of them.  if they are in the military, that's a good thing to get over.  mma as well as a host of other combat sports are a great way to face that.      

as for the latter...well the army doesn't exactly have a long history of following the marine corps, does it?  likely it's all politics.  the higher ups in the usmc liked the stuff that ended up in MCMAP, the higher ups in the army like mma.  once the decisions are made, it's very unlikely that one will change to conform to the other, even if the other's methods prove more effective.  

that said, unarmed combat should virtually never happen in the field.  it means your weapon failed, your team failed, & you somehow lost your blade.  so i think anything that gets people scrappin' & gives them some confidence & a sense of what actual unarmed violence is like is just fine.  if they choose to refine their unarmed skills from there that is terrific.  but if the issue is practicality, then almost all close range training should consist of weapons retention & knife deployment.      

just my opinion.  

jf


----------



## Draven (Dec 5, 2009)

jarrod said:


> let's just skip the whole vietnam thing for the sake of brevity, staying on topic, & not beating our heads against each others walls.
> 
> as for the first part, mental toughness comes in many varieties. everyone has their hang ups. i did great at firing drills, h2h, humps, & all that crap. but i hated swim qualifications to the point of near panic. but sometimes marines end up in the water, so i had to learn to deal with my phobia & get through it. some people just fall apart when someone is trying to beat the **** out of them. if they are in the military, that's a good thing to get over. mma as well as a host of other combat sports are a great way to face that.
> 
> ...


 
I'm one of the its not the art its the individual that makes the Art, people. The thing is I'm fine with the idea of teaching mental toughness, self-discipline and all that but the underlining purpose of the Combatives Training should be Killing the Enemy.

See one political or recruiting based initiative for MAC is that the Marines, made a name for themselves with MCMAP, it was proven to help raise enlistment numbers because the Marines could brag about having better training. I did both and can say the USMC does have better training, the Marines focus on better training to make up for a lack of funding compariable to the other branchs. So the Army to draw attention comes up with MAC, and draws heavily from GC for the notority of the Gracie name & riding the UFC tough guy image. Its more posturing then profeciency. 

See I think the Gracie stuff should stay there but I think its needs to draw effect stand up technques from another source to intergrate into it. Some the better MMA fighters often mix a striking system like Muay Thai with BJJ. They have a stand up game and ground game, where as the Army is a one trick pony with only a ground game. I'd love to see the MAC system be more effective at all three ranges, otherwise I just find it to be a political stunt & overhyped to offer soldiers a false sense of security. I've seen too many soldiers get into fights with other soldiers who had training in a striking system and watched them knocked stupid by trying to wrestle & not fight.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 6, 2009)

The Modern Army Combatives Program has a glaring weakness in my mind and that is they at this point do not really teach their soldiers the blade.  Take for instance the Force Marine Recons in the Philippines.  They learn PTK and it looks  a little like this:

[yt]gvtusTnmcRQ[/yt]

[yt]GvD0ebc1MAE[/yt]


----------



## MattNinjaZX-14 (Dec 6, 2009)

Both MACP and the MCMAP really need to be taught no flashy moves, just go straight for the veins and be taught to really stab with force so vicious. None of that fancy slashing b.s. 

The hand to hand combat course should do one thing. To kill or be killed.

No politics, no gimmicks. Only what really works.


----------



## jarrod (Dec 6, 2009)

my only critique (& it's a pretty minor one) on teaching kali to the modern soldier is that slicing is not going to be as effective in a lot of scenarios due to clothing.  i think a point-based blade system would be a little better.  but once again, anything that get's people used to the general idea of opening someone up with a knife should be a good enough start.  but the point remains (see what i did there? very punny) that some sort of knife training should make up the bulk of close quarters combat.  

i just started arnis a couple months ago, & i love the knife work!  fun stuff, very different from what i learned in the marine corps & various knife combatives systems.  

jf


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 6, 2009)

Hey Jarrod,

I would definitely agree if the Modern US Military continued to utilize the blades that are in current use.  However if they went to some thing bigger like a ginunting then well those slashes would be great. (the clothing would be inconsequential)


----------



## jarrod (Dec 6, 2009)

true dat!  i was always kind of wished that the smatchet had caught on.

jf


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 6, 2009)

MattNinjaZX-14 said:


> Both MACP and the MCMAP really need to be taught no flashy moves, just go straight for the veins and be taught to really stab with force so vicious. None of that fancy slashing b.s.
> 
> The hand to hand combat course should do one thing. To kill or be killed.
> 
> No politics, no gimmicks. Only what really works.


Not so.  Not with the variety of missions today's military handles.  And probably not even in the past; there has always been the need for prisoners, for example.  Even for a soldier, it's just not always necessary or appropriate to kill someone they're forced to fight.


----------



## MattNinjaZX-14 (Dec 6, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Not so.  Not with the variety of missions today's military handles.  And probably not even in the past; there has always been the need for prisoners, for example.  Even for a soldier, it's just not always necessary or appropriate to kill someone they're forced to fight.



The lethal portion of the curriculum is not hardcore enough. 

Too much emphasis on non-lethal options. They can be a good tool for what it is. 

The political correctness that has crept into the MACP curriculum is just plain ridiculous and stupid. Not only that it can get guys killed. 

A good limitus test is will this work in the barroom, the battlefield or prison ?

This is where people really die everyday. 

The U.S. Army really needs to get back to what works.

The army does not need to go chasing after the asian dragon of the marital arts. _( no offense intended here )_

The focus should be on what works.


----------



## Hudson69 (Dec 9, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Wrong. Most of a cop's fights do go to the ground, because if we pin the bad guy to the ground, we take away a significant amount of their mobility and ability to resist and fight.
> 
> And we can definitely punch, kick, and otherwise strike, when the situation merits it. You won't find many cops kicking very high, for lots of reasons, not least of which is the gun belt... but kicks and punches are certainly in the range of defensive tactics options.


 
I might have already posted on this but I think that this is venturing into new ground (for me).  There is a new study out there (FBI maybe?) that indicates that fighters who are untrained go to the ground and most of the fights that police get into only end up on the ground when they want them too; handcuffing is #1 and "pig-pile" is #2, meaning that they are just using a mechanical restraint or there is enough officers and a lack of weapons that will simply make it a simpler approach to arrest.  Otherwise it is a stand up fight/confrontation  so the handcuffing portion might not be a valid indicator on the "90% of fights going to the ground."

Many local LEO DT Instructors/agencies seem to be following the concept of fight smart, take out your opponent as quickly as possible, going to the ground seems to extend a fight (in my opinion).  My agency, and I am an assistant DT Instructor, we teach to avoid taking it to the ground unless you have too.  With the two main reasons being the advent of the MMA/UFC jujutsu type fighting arts which have taken off; so you never know who you might encounter (not that you should take anything lightly anyhow) and more importantly you never know when your opponent might have a friend nearby.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 10, 2009)

Draven said:


> I'm one of the its not the art its the individual that makes the Art, people. The thing is I'm fine with the idea of teaching mental toughness, self-discipline and all that but the underlining purpose of the Combatives Training should be Killing the Enemy.
> 
> See one political or recruiting based initiative for MAC is that the Marines, made a name for themselves with MCMAP, it was proven to help raise enlistment numbers because the Marines could brag about having better training. I did both and can say the USMC does have better training, the Marines focus on better training to make up for a lack of funding compariable to the other branchs. So the Army to draw attention comes up with MAC, and draws heavily from GC for the notority of the Gracie name & riding the UFC tough guy image. Its more posturing then profeciency.
> 
> See I think the Gracie stuff should stay there but I think its needs to draw effect stand up technques from another source to intergrate into it. *Some the better MMA fighters often mix a striking system like Muay Thai with BJJ.* They have a stand up game and ground game, where as the Army is a one trick pony with only a ground game. I'd love to see the MAC system be more effective at all three ranges, otherwise I just find it to be a political stunt & overhyped to offer soldiers a false sense of security. I've seen too many soldiers get into fights with other soldiers who had training in a striking system and watched them knocked stupid by trying to wrestle & not fight.


 


I shall leave the inter service arguing to you guys though I could unite you by saying our Army and Royal Marines are better trained lol! that would get you both going!
No my point is that here you seemed to have missed the point of MMA, it is striking and groundwork not just one. By saying that some MMA fighters mix in striking seems to me to be saying you think MMA is just groundwork?
Grappling and striking arts were often used in the past as training usually non lethal for troops, Gengis Khan who's troops were mounted of course had his soldiers wrestle, it was good fitness, encouraged competitiveness and aggression plus kept the soldiers occupied.


----------

