|
I wasn't there, so I'm just repeating what I've been told, but "too aggressive" was the complaint or criticism offered against what Carl showed some Army units. I don't know which units, and I don't know if what he showed was any different from what he usually teaches though I suspect he just turned things up a couple of notches (IIRC, they [he and Clint and whomever else went down] did some work with a live blade to show how ineffective some techniques are.)
I personally don't understand this. In an LE environment, where subduing the suspect is the goal, people are innocent until proven guilty, and litigation is an overriding concern, it may be a valid criticism. However, in the context of the military I'd think these would all be secondary or tertiary concerns. Who cares if a Tango gets hurt? Is there some difference in killing a BG by shooting him vs. crushing his throat? I don't see it, myself.
Other, perhpas more valid, concerns are that it's difficult to train combatives without incurring injuries and that troops trained in combatives are more likely to seriously injure others in bar fights and other altercations than those trained in BJJ.
The first is certainly true, but can be largely mitigated with properly designed exercises, equipment, and supervision. (E.g., trainees practice striking each other's arms, rather than necks, to get sense of effectiveness of EOH blows, and use Spar Pros or other striking dummies to train targetting and chin jabs/ face smashes.)
The second, is also valid, but not something that IMHO should determine training priorites. People get hurt in bar fights...BFD. Warn troops that using combative techniques is using deadly force and punish those who do so cavalierly. Perhaps continue to train BJJ because of the benefits in physical conditioning, competitiveness and to provide a less lethal alternative.
My $.02
|
Threaded Mode
