Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc
Thank you for your reply. It is not "Sir".
I just watched some video of the competition - looks like the UFC to me. I am aware of the Larsen connection.
You say combatives techniques are not too dangerous for competition. I beg to differ. True combatives are indeed, unless they are pulled. Are nutcrackers, chin jabs, fingertip to the throat, bronco stomp or EOH to the back of the neck allowed? Are they conducting the competition in fatigues and boots with full equipment? I saw Speedos and half-gloves. I saw a lot of mounts and guards and riding. I also saw competitors tapping out.
I have the utmost respect for the fighters with the discipline to be successful in the ring sports. I have no problem with competition to build espirit de corps. I do have a problem with MMA or UFC-style fighting being called military combatives.
Good luck to you. I'll stick with Applegate, Cestari, McCann and Fairbairn.
|
I am a huge fan of Applegate, and have done a lot of reading on him and his teachings. I think we both are on the same page in our liking of many of the older style techniques. The problem with some of the older techniques is the same issues as the LINES program, which is still used here at Bragg a bit. It was rare to ever see units training the older techniques. I know and like the DonVitos very much, but how often do soldiers train LINES again after going thru the course. Most that I know, never again. Broken rhythm training (I need you to stop for a second while I do this technique) is not going to teach real world timing, and is not going to allow the soldier to gain confidence in executing the technique. It does not matter how good some of the old techniques are if we cannot get the units to train.
I have read many of the other threads and discussions on other sites regarding FM 3-25.150. It is not my goal to try to sell anyone on the merits of the MAC program. I believe in the program myself, both for the battlefield and competition, but then again, I have trained in the program and I have been put in situations in the Sand Box where I then used that training. The real keys to MAC are positional dominance, leading to weapons transitions and being able to train at 100%.
Using the examples of nutcrackers, bronco stomps, etc. In the end how many times will a soldier get to train a bronco stomp or fingers to the throat at 100% before it really matters in combat? The answer is never. Many of our knife fighting experts around the US, what makes them a knife fighting expert? How many actual 100% to the death knife fights have they been in, where life was at stake? Most of them, none. My point is that the ability to train at 100% is a powerful tool, both physical and mental. Is a soldier going to pass the guard of Haji and then armbar him? Of course not. But, if a soldier gets tackled entering a short room and his buddies are tied up, it would be a good thing to know to get to a dominant position to finish the fight.
Reading the FM is a lot different than going thru the Level I or Level II course. I highly suggest giving the Level I course a shot, then, if nothing is gained from the program, make a choice from there to continue training or not. Many times, those that are against the program have no training in the MACP. I truely believe that MACP combined with some of the older Army Manuals is the best combination of training.
I teach Level I and Level II here on Bragg for all units (minus Secret Squirrel units - Thats all Greg). I have many SF students in my classes, and help teach at SWMG in the mornings for PT. If anyone at Bragg is ever looking to go thru the Level I or II course, please give me a shout. I am at Ritz-Epps almost everyday, at least until I take over Lee Gym early 07 as the new "Combatives School". I am easy to find, the 6-3 bald guy, with the huge tattoo wearing the Combatives Instructor shirt.
Jeff