Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: juji gatame for military

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    127
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default juji gatame for military

    http://www.harrisonburgdojo.com/jiujitsu.html

    Is anyone really teaching this kind of ground fighting in the military?
    Or is it kind of impractical with there being other enemy soldiers around?

    Even if you did encounter a single enemey soldier I doubt you would just want to "submit him" like this. What would be the next step? He taps out and both just go back to thier camps?
    don engle

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Houston, TX 77034
    Posts
    246
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    I think the endgame would be hyper-extending his elbow, rendering it unable to be used. From there, he's easy to finish off. Of course, in a "battlefield" situation, where there's 50 guys running around with AK-47 and bayonets, it probably wouldn't be the best idea, but if you're a modern soldier grappling with an enemy I'd imagine it's already a "worst case scenario".
    Kevin Geaslin
    Genbukan Ninpo & Kokusai Jujutsu

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    285
    Likes (received)
    33

    Thumbs up Stick w/ ichi-gatame, it's quicker.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Geaslin View Post
    I think the endgame would be hyper-extending his elbow, rendering it unable to be used. From there, he's easy to finish off. Of course, in a "battlefield" situation, where there's 50 guys running around with AK-47 and bayonets, it probably wouldn't be the best idea, but if you're a modern soldier grappling with an enemy I'd imagine it's already a "worst case scenario".
    IIRC, either the US Army's or Marine's (I can't find it right now) new unarmed combat program actually starts from a premise that reads very close to the following:

    The guy who wins is the guy who's buddy shows up first with a gun.
    Lance Gatling ガトリング
    Tokyo 東京

    Long as we're making up titles, call me 'The Duke of Earl'

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    O'Fallon, IL (near St Louis)
    Posts
    16
    Likes (received)
    0

    Cool Combat Reality

    As a veteran with 30 plus years of military service in both the Army Guard (Infantry) and the Air Force, I don't think prolonged grappling is the answer to close quarter battle. When one considers the limitations imposed upon the modern warrior, such as personal equipment, basic combat load, body armor, etc. it is impractical to expect to perform well in a ground grappling scenario. I recall well having been through Army Infantry hand-to-hand combat training during the Vietnam era. We were taught first how to shoot, then how to utilize a bayonet, how to fight with a knife, next how to utilize improvised weapons (entrenching too, sock full of sand, helmet as a striking instrument, stick/club, etc.), and lastly how to fight without the aid of any of the aforementioned aids. It is difficult to imagine a fighting scenario where some sort of weapon could not be brought into play. As a bare minimum one would be eye gouging, bitting (which I've utilized to great success on more than one occasion), groin grabbing, etc.).

    Having been a Judoka, Jujutsuka, and wrestler, I appreciate the skills one achieves through these largely sporting and cultural endeavors. But, it is not combat. Combat requires shock effective, quick, and violent techniques to achieve close combat effectiveness. I fear that UFC, BJJ, MMA, and other such modern innovations have perhaps warped our perspective as to what military personnel should be modeling themselves after. It is my opinon that the focus should first, and always be, on practical shooting skills with both a rifle and a pistol. Next the emphasis should be on knife fighting, followed by bayonet fighting, to improvised weapons, and lastly to hand to hand combat methodologies that do not rely on grappling, but on violent striking and takedown techniques leading to finishing techniques to a downed opponent. Fundamental grappling techniques should be taught as a nice to know follow on course.

    One old warrior's opinon....

    Roy J. Hobbs, Colonel (Retired), U.S. Air Force
    Somalia Veteran, Airborne, Air Assault, Pathfinder, Air Commando!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    68
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    I agree in theory with alot of what is said here about combatives and not wanting to grapple or wrestle extensively in combat.

    Although I agree with the point, I think that point is the right answer to the wrong question. Sooooo many kids coming into the military now are non-physical people. Grappling/MMA type training in combatives provides the greatest training effect in the areas of mental toughness, physical toughness, and dynamic athleticism.

    Id also like to point out that I believe that when it comes to doing REAL fighting -- eye gouge, surprise attack with knives, or any of the Fairburn type things, the best wrestler is likely to be the most successful combatant. NOT BECAUSE he (or she!) can wrestle through the techniques, but because the person with a great deal of body on body grappling training usually has the best "feel" for techniques due to the intuitive grasp of balance,angles and moving forces through bodies.

    I completely respect Col. Hobbes opinion, and what he is trying to say. I wouldn't even say I disagree. I think that the "ends" that he would see as the best state are still best achieved through the means of the less-than-lethal training. Interestingly enough, I think this is a 120 year old discussion, almost verbatim the same as Kano's discussions with the classical Jujitsu Ryuha (right term?)

    Im a vet of Bosnia-Hercegovina and Iraq, former PSYOP NCO, mentioning just so that I dont sound like an outsider talking about military things.
    Kyro R. Lantsberger
    "They couldnt hit an elephant at this dist--." Last words of Civil War Union General Sedgewick

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    411
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dengle View Post
    http://www.harrisonburgdojo.com/jiujitsu.html

    Is anyone really teaching this kind of ground fighting in the military?
    Or is it kind of impractical with there being other enemy soldiers around?

    Even if you did encounter a single enemey soldier I doubt you would just want to "submit him" like this. What would be the next step? He taps out and both just go back to thier camps?
    For some in the military, yes, for others, no. I know in the Army, in the usasoc community, some/most units contract whomever they feel like at the time, which can change every year. My unit has changed instructors/schools at least twice that I know of in the past year and I think one batallion has a different instructor contracted out then the others do.
    I agree with you but I love martial arts, and if my unit wants to have me do BJJ instead of actually working, I'll gladly do it.
    At the same time, it comes down to actual experience in sparring/fighting/competing which can be achieved through mma, grappling, muay thai, etc. More times then not I'd rather go with a Lumpini champion that has hundreds of muay thai fights then a krav maga instructor that only trains in scenarios with no live and resisting experience.
    Brian Culpepper

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida, USA
    Posts
    733
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyro Lantsberger View Post
    I agree in theory with alot of what is said here about combatives and not wanting to grapple or wrestle extensively in combat.

    Although I agree with the point, I think that point is the right answer to the wrong question. Sooooo many kids coming into the military now are non-physical people. Grappling/MMA type training in combatives provides the greatest training effect in the areas of mental toughness, physical toughness, and dynamic athleticism.

    Id also like to point out that I believe that when it comes to doing REAL fighting -- eye gouge, surprise attack with knives, or any of the Fairburn type things, the best wrestler is likely to be the most successful combatant. NOT BECAUSE he (or she!) can wrestle through the techniques, but because the person with a great deal of body on body grappling training usually has the best "feel" for techniques due to the intuitive grasp of balance,angles and moving forces through bodies.

    I completely respect Col. Hobbes opinion, and what he is trying to say. I wouldn't even say I disagree. I think that the "ends" that he would see as the best state are still best achieved through the means of the less-than-lethal training. Interestingly enough, I think this is a 120 year old discussion, almost verbatim the same as Kano's discussions with the classical Jujitsu Ryuha (right term?)

    Im a vet of Bosnia-Hercegovina and Iraq, former PSYOP NCO, mentioning just so that I dont sound like an outsider talking about military things.
    As a current Active Duty senior NCO with 20 years of service, and a martial arts instructor with 29 years experience (and a certified MACP instructor) I have to agree wholeheartedly.

    What really bothers me about those who argue against the program is the FACT that MACP is PROVEN IN COMBAT. Game over, argument done! There are hundreds of AARs out there that seem to be ignored.

    Jeff Cook

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Stuutgart, Germany
    Posts
    23
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    MACP is a good program and it works. Fighting is a complex art. MACP should not be taken literally from a cursory view of the program. It is as Mr Cook and Lantsberger point out above.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    208
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Cook View Post
    As a current Active Duty senior NCO with 20 years of service, and a martial arts instructor with 29 years experience (and a certified MACP instructor) I have to agree wholeheartedly.

    What really bothers me about those who argue against the program is the FACT that MACP is PROVEN IN COMBAT. Game over, argument done! There are hundreds of AARs out there that seem to be ignored.

    Jeff Cook
    Jeff, I don't want to sound hostile, because I am not. However, claims unsupported by facts do not win an argument. I have yet to see a single account of anyone using MACP training successfully in a real fight. Can you point us to one?

    Failing that, can you give us accounts?

    If you describe the accounts yourself, it would be useful in evaluating the effectiveness of the system to know: 1) the type of attack and how it began and unfolded, 2) the environment, 3) whether weapons were involved, 4) whether it was a surprise or the defender saw it coming, 5) the distance at which the attack began, 6) the defender's initial response , and 7) a description of what the defender did to render the assailant unable to continue.

    I ask this as a friendly inquiry to get at the facts supporting the claims of MACP supporters, not as a means to tear you down or attack what you are doing. Some people question the MACP approach, and I think reasonably so because there are many instances of people using other methods successfully (those I know of personally are judo-derived or judo-like, sometimes involving weapons).

    So, help us out here, and advance the debate a little.

    Thanks.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Stuutgart, Germany
    Posts
    23
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default re

    Lets look at this a different way:

    How about you find a soldier that has been in combat, that has been in a Close Quarters Battle at hand to hand range and have them tell you that MAC-P is a poor methodology for training.

    I have never found one that has come back and told me that. I have had soldiers I have trained come back and tell me either first hand that the training they recieved prior to deployment was relevant and worthwile. A few of them felt that the training enhanced there ability in the altercations/situations they have had, or that they had members of their unit that were involved in such situations.

    The naysayers of the program typically fall into a couple of categories. one, they are proponents of the old system of training hand to hand and have not been sufficiently exposed to, or have trained in MAC-P. (military or civilian)

    They are not in the military and our on the "outside" of the program looking in. They read books and magazines like soldier of fortune and extrapolate their experiences and what if's. Typically they study styles and paradigms that conflict with the methodologies we use in MAC-P. So they cannot conceive or understand it.

    They run a commercial school and again, the paradigm is in conflict. They want to attract soldiers or to use the military as a marketing tool. maybe they were in the military, but now can no longer effectively market their goods in the same manner that they were accustomed to in the past. Maybe they would like to sell services to the military and we are saying "no thanks".

    I was the Chief of Training of one of our Combat Training Centers for a while. I didn't get paid a bonus nor did my paycheck matter on offering Combatives training. I had combat proven and experienced soldiers come back from downrange and tell me that MAC-P was not a waste of time.

    The Marine Corps, the Army, and now the Air Force all feel like the training methodologies we are using today for this type of training is relevant and worthwile....Guys whose lives depend on it. The programs are sustained and came up as grassroots programs through the military, not mandated by congress or dreamed up by a contractor to sell to the military.

    Also, MAC-P is a methodology for training, not a "fighting system", "style", or a collection of techniques that you can label whoa...that is MAC-P.

    MAC-P is based on a fundamental program of study to standardize and to provide a starting point and a framework to provide for sustainability and interoperatibility and to support a institution of soldiers.

    However, it is "open source" in that you can focus on or train whatever you feel is appropriate. The trick is that your fellow soldiers will hold you accountable for proving that it works.

    I think the this is what makes it such a threat to "outsiders" or critics of the program, they will continue to be on the outside because they have selected themselves out of it because to accept it would be absorbtion into the program which holds tham accountable for their abilities and skills (ego), and we may just say "your smoking crack dude" get with the program.

    You find that those that have skills to offer and the right attitude say "yeah, good program, I can adapt to that. it worked for me.

    We don't draw lines in MAC-P...it is a true MMA philosophy system. I bring you in the dojo, we set up the senario you want to try, and then we go for it under various controlled conditions for safety and you show me why what you do is better than something else and why we should do it that way...then we do it that way.

    I have trained with 100s of soldiers that came into my dojo or MACP program with black belts or sashes and we worked through it. They left with an understanding of MACP and why it is important to train in that way. Most left with a better appreciation of the relevancy of their art and where they needed to improve.

    So, I'd offer you this:

    You would be hard pressed to find a soldier that says that "yeah, I specifically used MACP, not Fairbairn-Skyes method, of TKD, or something else. He'd say something like "I didn't see the guy until he was on me, We grappled a little, I achieved dominance, and buttstroked him".

    Then ask the next questions: "How did your pre-deployment training, or experiences as a soldier help you?" He'd offer up a bunch of things that he felt helped him...luck probably being one of them.

    Then ask: Did you spend anytime with MACP prior to deployment. He might say "Yeah". Do you feel it helped you at all?

    He might say yes or no. If the answer is NO, many times upon further probing he might say that it was too quick and that the guy just fell off him and he grabbed his rifle and buttstroked the guy, so he didn't really use MACP. (He might look at it from a paraochial point of view).

    If you further question him, and ask "do you feel that MACP is worthwile training". He might even say YES. Who knows.

    Anyway...Matt Larsen and Company at Benning collects AARs from soldiers returning from downrange that are involved in such situations. They take those, learn from those an adapt the program as necessary.

    So, it is much more complex a question to ask for a black or white "does it work in a literal sense". that usually tells me alot about the experience level of the person asking the question about what they understand about training soldiers and the depth and breadth of their experience.

    Again, I'd pose the question another way. Find me a soldier that has been downrange that has been in a situation that says that it does not work or is a waste of time, then lets question him together.

    That would make for an interesting discourse!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Stuutgart, Germany
    Posts
    23
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Here is an example of the type of senario that MACP addresses:

    http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=1689

    Did MSG Pryor study MACP prior to the event? I don't know, nor does it really matter if he did or didn't. Could be that he studied nothing or something entirely different.

    For me, as a MACP proponent it becomes clear from his encounter that the things we spend time on in MACP ARE relevant.

    The real question would be to ask this. MSG Pryor, do you see value in training in MACP? he'd probably say yes.

    I know the SOF community feels MACP is important. I spent sometime in Germany training with a good friend of mine who is contracted with 10th Group...that is ....you guessed it...a MACP instructor and a former MMA fighter!

    Does he agree with everything the school house puts out? No. Do I? No.

    Does that mean that MACP as a whole is not relevant. No.

    Again, it is an open source mentality with a good common base.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida, USA
    Posts
    733
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Kevin, excellent posts! Jay, I cannot improve on that. Matt has hundreds of AARs. Send him an email and I am sure he can provide you a few. I had assumed you are in the military and had access to those. My apologies for making that assumption.

    By the way Jay, MACP DOES include "judo-derived or judo-like, sometimes involving weapons" TTPs; that is a major part of the program. How much actual contact have you had with the program? I do not want to make any more incorrect assumptions. Also Jay, I do not think your inquiries are hostile.

    Jeff Cook

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    208
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Cook View Post
    Kevin, excellent posts! Jay, I cannot improve on that. Matt has hundreds of AARs. Send him an email and I am sure he can provide you a few. I had assumed you are in the military and had access to those. My apologies for making that assumption.

    By the way Jay, MACP DOES include "judo-derived or judo-like, sometimes involving weapons" TTPs; that is a major part of the program. How much actual contact have you had with the program? I do not want to make any more incorrect assumptions. Also Jay, I do not think your inquiries are hostile.

    Jeff Cook
    By way of background, I trained in material similar to what you can find in FM 21-150 (both 1942 and 1954 editions). My state's department of corrections and statewide law enforcement agency syllabuses are based on similar techniques. I have used the stuff and I know officers who have as well.

    As Kevin says, I am on the outside looking in as far as MACP is concerned. So I understanding of the system necessarily is shallow. What concerns me, and I think concerns many others, is the emphasis on BJJ style techniques. (I am assured by friends in the Army that it goes beyond that, however.) Although without question effective, they are essentially sportive in nature. There is some really nasty stuff that will break BJJ submissions. It's not fool proof, of course, but then nothing is fool proof.

    I am also concerned by statements Matt Larsen has made to the effect that the stuff in 21-150 doesn't work. This is simply not true.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida, USA
    Posts
    733
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    I had some interesting discussions with Matt on the phone years ago when this MACP thing was coming about. One of my remarks to him was my strong disagreement that the stuff in the older 21-150's "doesn't work." It DOES work. What DIDN'T work was the US Army had a manual with great techniques in it, but NO effective, standardized program to teach techniques, and more importantly, to teach the principles of H2H combat.

    Jay, if you liked those older 21-150's (boy, I would LOVE to get my hands on a copy of the 1942 edition! Any help?) you would like the 21-150 that was replaced by MACP.

    The empasis on BJJ TRAINING PRINCIPLES is what makes the program work - not necessarily the techniques. BJJ techniques are actually judo/JJJ techniques anyway. What makes BJJ unique and different are the training drills, combinations, etc. - and the different competitive rule-set. The competitive rule-set allows Soldiers to train relatively safely but in an aggressive manner against a resisting, somewhat-skilled opponent. Sparring is an essential method of combat training. Kinda like MOUT training with paintball, simunitions, or MILES gear. Just like we don't shoot real bullets at each other while practicing infantry tactics for combat, we don't try to kill our partners when we practice combatives. But we DAMN sure develop the ability, motivation, and wherewithal to do so.

    Jeff Cook

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Stuutgart, Germany
    Posts
    23
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Re

    Jeff covered it pretty well. I had posted this morning but it got dumped when I lost my internet connection.

    Anyway, it really covered the same thing that Jeff said.

    It might be of interest to you that I had the same concerns when Matt first developed the program. I am an Aikido guy and of course, all this ground stuff and BJJ seemed wrong and useless.

    After getting a good intro to the program and BJJ, I had a big "aha" moment. I am now a purple belt in BJJ and continue to study Aikido 3 days a week.

    So, as Jeff said, it is not that it is the wrong thing to study, but it actually works very well in teaching principles and working as a standard.

    We tend to look at fighting from whatever methodology we study, and judge other's methodologies as if it were a fight strategy.

    BJJers and ground fighters are very good on the ground. You will find that most have a fair amount of common sense and understand that fighting on the ground is not the best thing to do as a strategy.

    All fights really work as follows, close distance, dominate/control, finish.

    MACP is really about that. BJJ actually is a great method for training that hierarchy.

    Again, Jeff covered it pretty well.

    I'd be happy to answer any further questions that you might have. I probably did not really answer your question entirely I am sure.

    I'd recommend listening closely to what Matt Larsen says on his basic videos.

    Also the stuff that Matt Thornton at SBG preaches about is good too concerning aliveness, timing, sensitivity.

    This is really alot of what MACP is about...we don't really care that people develop a good ground game, but develop a good base of how you move and engage, then work outwardly to further refine skills.

    Most will not do it....but we have seen phenomenal success as units and post have taken to the program with the model that MACP works on. The competition thing is simply a wonderful thing to keep people training..where as, the old FMs, while containing good stuff, simply did not provide structure to train on day in and day out.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •