Army Martial Arts - Are You Joking? By Keith Pascal

MBuzzy

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
107
Location
West Melbourne, FL
You guys have got it.

Remember that when you bring someone in to a military organization officially, there are a lot of things to consider (I'm sure that it is mostly the same for LE). First of all is funding. These guys don't want to teach for free, unless they are looking for a resume bullet. But then they probably will only do a few isolated seminars. If the guy is going to teach on a regular basis, he is going to need paid. That means spending Tax payer's money. While most people think that the military pisses away money pretty easily, there is a complicated approval process to spend a dime and only a very few, specially authorized individuals are allowed to commit the government to spend money. It gets more complicated when someone is under contract. I'm sure that Mr. Vunak was under contract with the SEALs.
Next, we have liability issues. When a military member gets injured, there is a lot of trained invested in the guy. Now we can't stop individuals from seeking training, but in my experience, on a large scale basis, leaders are nervous about bringing in civilians (who they can't directly control and monitor) to teach dangerous activities to troops.
Last, moving the military is like moving a mile long ship.....it turns VERY slowly. Going from teaching a single unit or a few guys to changing policy and influencing service wide training is a SLOOOW and arduous process. It took the Air Force nearly 4 years to develop their combatives program. During that time they had several advisors (mainly active duty AF that were assigned to the project who also had MA experience) to build the program, but they made their own organic style to suit their needs, as opposed to using a COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf....or already existing MA style) style.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,341
Reaction score
4,623
Location
England
First point - It is a big peeve of mine all of the people who claim to have "trained the military or LE" As others have said, most of those claims are largely untrue. .......Unquote


These people are known as 'Walts' here. There's different groups of them, all of whom claim to be somethng they're not. Sadly some even believe what they are sayng. The military especially attracts Walts, an unoffical army site here takes great delight in 'outing' them!

142201-1.png
 

AlanE

Yellow Belt
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
46
Reaction score
3
Location
Alaska
You guys have got it.
Remember that when you bring someone in to a military organization officially, there are a lot of things to consider (I'm sure that it is mostly the same for LE). First of all is funding...

...leaders are nervous about bringing in civilians (who they can't directly control and monitor) to teach dangerous activities to troops.
Last, moving the military is like moving a mile long ship.....it turns VERY slowly. Going from teaching a single unit or a few guys to changing policy and influencing service wide training is a SLOOOW and arduous process. It took the Air Force nearly 4 years to develop their combatives program. During that time they had several advisors (mainly active duty AF that were assigned to the project who also had MA experience) to build the program, but they made their own organic style to suit their needs, as opposed to using a COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf....or already existing MA style) style.

Absolutely correct. It sounds like you have an acquisition job, esp. if you're using "COTS." Contracting Officer?

Funny thing happened during my "outside the Air Force" training while I was Active Duty (20 years). I was in Pavel Tsatsouline's Kettlebell Trainer Cert. course, and everybody was pretty tough. However, they were also much more accomplished and risked their lives more than me. During introductions on the first day, after a few hours of hitting shields and running sprints, Pavel turns to me and asks, "PJ?" (Air Force Special Forces Parajumpers) because he knew I was in the Air Force. "Pharmacy" I said, to a pause, and then a laugh from him.

Most interesting memory: We had fighting segments (the best way to explain certain things) and Pavel closes distance and picks me up. No one was going all-out, but I hung with Muay Thai, a SEAL, a police officer with kicks of a mule, and assorted Federal agents who couldn't have their pictures taken, and gave back with Tang Soo Do + whatever else I had. Pavel's witnesses my success and asks to be let in. "Ohhhh-kkkk. Don't think too much," I was thinking. Before I finished my self-talk, Pavel's moves, picks me up, and says that's all people have to do. That was a very helpful eye-opener. I had no ground game at all. Many other weakness, too. I can't 100% recall how he did it. But I learned! Those who can do it, do it. The rest of us were more fit than accomplished fighters I think.

Also, he was superman strong in a slim 5'11" frame, I'd estimate, being 6' even myself. He stressed to be as strong as possible while being as light as possible. Use positive resistance & minimal negative. According to him negative adds size & weight but with little additional strength.

Pavel was doing seminars on U.S. Marine Corps camps 2002-2003, but I don't know the contractual details. I'd say since his instruction was not fighting but strength training, flexibility, and force application (to enhance survival), the risks were low and it was simply a seminar.

Thanks for the great explanation of military combatives. My trainee in the Army happens to be a combatives instructor in two acronyms. The current Army one, plus the one with extreme exhaustion and call out your moves while you make them – Air Force or Marine current?
 

sandanbob

White Belt
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi, there. This is my first post here, and I will say up front that I do subscribe to Mr. Pascal's newsletters/e-zines. That is how I learned about this thread. I am a member on other forums, but had not found this one prior to this. That should take care of disclaimers.

Like some of the folks who have posted, I can list instructors I have studied under, rank that I hold, police departments that I have trained (OK, it's only one, and in my home town.) I will do so upon request, but I am not sure that it is germaine. I think that's the word. Besides, most of my instructors are not folks you would have heard of- which doesn't mean they aren't good, just that they aren't famous. And, I am not a super high and mighty soke of any style. Anyway...

I read the article in the original post, and all of the replies, and want to share some thoughts. I may not hit all the points that struck me as I read through, as keeping four pages of posts in my head is more than I can accomplish.

A little background- I have to say that I have subscribed to Mr. Pascal's e-mails for years, since 2005. While I don't always agree with what he says (frequently I do) and I there are times that I don't have enough experience to make a judgement, I have found that his writing is worth both reading and considering. I believe that is what he hopes for, and some thoughtful discussion is welcome. He has training in styles and under instructors that I don't have access to, so if I can benefit from that experience, then I wish to do so. That's why I am a member of other internet forums in various and sundry topics. Life is too short for me to figure everything out for myself, that's for sure.

Next, I have so say that there are several posts that as I read I could see where some misunderstanding crept in. Either a poster thought a prior post was to them, or some humor was intended and not clear, or terms used seemed to mean different things to different people. Those misunderstandings grew, and perhaps people felt some anger or frustration.

To me, it seems that one of the biggest of those misunderstandings, both here and other forums, is the term "martial art(s)." From WWII combatives, to the "traditional martial arts" (budo? bujutsu? koryu? for those in Japanese styles) to modern war skill sets, they are all martial arts in my view. However, based on who I am talking to (or, typing) I may need to either modify or explain what I am talking about. I believe the article that is the subject of this thread was not intended for the members of this forum, and did not include such clarifications and definitions. In addition, I don't believe it was intended to be a complete thesis, but an attempt to cause people to think- whether those people were folks with little or no knowledge of ANY of the martial arts, or those looking for new avenues to experience.

I think that point of the article is really the warning at the end. It was intended as a caution against those who make false claims regarding their skills, training, experience, knowledge, whatever you choose to call it, with regards to the military/martial arts they are teaching. I have seen videos advertised in magazines and catalogs that I found to be very suspect, as an example. While Keith did discuss briefly training of the different services (hey, does the Coast Guard do any combative training?) and his opinions of what they teach (to his knowledge), cases where specifics of the data presented might be incomplete or incorrect could be pointed out in a friendly manner, and the discussion could grow from there. There did seem to be some agreement that such a warning was valid.

Or, folks could disagree. That is one of the great things about forums such as this.

My impression of Keith is not that he has his nose in the air (though, in truth I would have phrased some of his replies differently, had it been me), but that he is genuinely interested in both learning and teaching.

Let me close by saying that a forum such as this lacks the visual and auditory cues that people give and receive in a face to face meeting. Which makes it easier to misunderstand what somebody is trying to convey. I do ask that those who read this response consider that, and reply in kind.

Thanks for the opportunity to share.

Bob
 

MBuzzy

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
107
Location
West Melbourne, FL
Absolutely correct. It sounds like you have an acquisition job, esp. if you're using "COTS." Contracting Officer?

32E, Civil Engineer....so close enough! I work contracts pretty frequently - or did in several previous jobs. Right now I work in CE Readiness (The CBRNE/Emergency Management guys), if you're from med, we work really closely and share some responsibilities with Bio and Public Health.

Incidentally, I just met a PJ and spent a month long TDY with him and he really didn't get too much in the way of combatives/hand to hand. It just goes to show that it is all about mission. We are pretty good about providing the right training for the job that you do. Even being the toughest most hardcore dudes in the Air Force....their mission is to rescue anyone, anytime, anywhere....and if necessary kill anyone in their way. They get the basics, but just enough to kill and move on. Most of their training on that came from the Army.
 

AlanE

Yellow Belt
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
46
Reaction score
3
Location
Alaska
Well put, MBuzzy. We certainly were more fit than we were elite fighters. When I was teaching kettlebells in my backyard on base, some guys were encouraging me to enter MMA contests. Sure let THEM enter. They'd toss me in the ring and keep a safe distance in case I got thrown out as a projectile! My wild oats were sown long before. New responsibilities.

Plus, I'm trying to see the next Haley's comet so I will have seen it twice. I'll be about 100 yrs old I believe. But the big question is will I be jogging or practicing no movement...

I'm a Contract Specialist for the Army now (4 years), but I do miss the Pharmacy. That was one of the few military jobs where one could interact with war vets daily for 20 years and I loved it. A lot of work, not serene like the off-base pharmacies people picture. In addition, I came through the typewriter age. We had two set up in tandem with bottle labels, and we'd race each other. Pharmacy was fun with a serious side of course. Typing skill came in handy the next 12 years when computers went down and I was the only hard-key typist that could keep up with the prescriptions. When I retired in 2003 I actually think they stopped having back-up systems as well - if our computers went down there became no work-around processes, since so much data flowed through them.
 

JiujitsuKid

White Belt
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The only thing I don't see being talked about is the goal of a martial artist and that of a soldier. The ultimate goal of a martial artist is perfection of one's character and to defend if necessary. A battlefield soldier is trained to kill. I don't see how military could possibly be considered martial arts anymore. Most combat skills taught (not all of course) are basic and more for self-confidence (see boxer rebelion). As if BJJ in a ruck sac or full automatic weapons are really practical. So, compare the goal and the methods and from my view Keith is right on the money. Yes, Im a vet and a martial artist and have been for 35 yrs.
 

MBuzzy

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
107
Location
West Melbourne, FL
The only thing I don't see being talked about is the goal of a martial artist and that of a soldier. The ultimate goal of a martial artist is perfection of one's character and to defend if necessary. A battlefield soldier is trained to kill. I don't see how military could possibly be considered martial arts anymore. Most combat skills taught (not all of course) are basic and more for self-confidence (see boxer rebelion). As if BJJ in a ruck sac or full automatic weapons are really practical. So, compare the goal and the methods and from my view Keith is right on the money. Yes, Im a vet and a martial artist and have been for 35 yrs.

Respectfully submitted:
Certainly an interesting perspective, but that line of reasoning depends upon a very subjective definition of the term "Martial Arts." You say that a martial artists' ultimate goal is perfection of character? I most whole heartedly disagree. Character is a corollary concept to the martial arts. The ultimate goal of the martial sciences is combat. The character aspect is taught as a means of discretion and self control. Now, we sensationalize that in the West, thinking that martial arts are some deeply spiritual thing - and that is certainly a personal decision and has become true for many arts, but historically, they are for combat. Protection and offense. It is just that in older cultures, their beliefs and religion was so inextricably intertwined with daily life that it was assumed a part of the martial art itself. Today, we teach those character aspects because there is no point in combat anymore. There is very little chance that you will be mugged on your way home from the Dojo (in most areas) or have to defend your life on a daily basis. For most people, they won't use their martial arts on the battle field. So we teach strength of character, ethics and values in an attempt to show people when and how to use what they have learned.

Another comment, that combat skills are for confidence? Are you referring to combat skills in the military or in martial arts? I would have to disagree with both of those points. I can affirm from a first hand point of view that combat skills are taught for necessity. They are taught to give you confidence IN your ability to fight and kill, so in a very direct way, they are taught for confidence, but I don't think in the way you're thinking. We don't teach marksmanship so that people feel good about themselves. We teach it so that when some crazy drives at your convoy going 120 kph, you have the confidence that you know how to use your weapon...the confidence that you can hit what you aim for, and the confidence in your ability to engage the enemy. In martial arts, I would draw the same conclusion. While some schools may preach that they teach self confidence....again, they are giving you confidence in your ability to perform a certain skill set. Luckily the human mind is a wonderful thing and can link self worth to your ability to perform certain skills. In martial arts and in military combat, we DO feel good about ourselves when we perform well, but I don't think that is the point you were making.

Finally, I'd like to link back to the basic definition of martial arts. The word itself - Martial (i.e. military) arts is the practice of combat. Even as early as 100 years ago, martial arts were not being taught and passed down through generations to make people feel good about themselves or to give kids a sense of accomplishment and teach them values. There were no little dragons classes in feudal Japan. Martial Sciences (or arts as I see it, very little difference) have always been taught for the purpose of combat. Samurai were taught to fight with a sword, Monks learned to defend the monastery from those who wanted their treasure or land, and even now, soldiers fight to enforce the will of their government. If you draw a direct line from ancient martial arts to now, if anything the military is the only group who really is still practicing martial arts. The idea of teaching martial arts to civilians for no other reason than sport is a fairly new concept. These are military concepts, every culture in history has had their own military training and way of teaching soldiers (and militia if you want to talk about the family styles) to fight to defend some principle or ideal. Now, we are doing the same thing, but we no longer use swords and empty hands, we use M4s and MRAPs. This is our combat style now, shooting and tactical movement. Even an airplane dropping a bomb is a form of martial arts. How different is that from an archer on horseback (yep, that's a "traditional" martial art too - Kuk Kung in Korea)? Or from sword fighting?

So, in summary, I would argue that 1) Martial arts are at their base about combat. Learning to fight and defend. Self confidence, values, character, are all taught in parallel, but have been added out of necessity and marketing.
2) The term Martial Art can be applied to any combat system, particularly those in use by military forces, as they are training to combat an enemy. It is just as applicable, if not more applicable to military forces as it is to a civilian teaching kids and soccer moms.

Now - certainly, if your opinion is that Martial Arts are about character and not fighting, then you are certainly right on all counts, but I disagree about that point.

Also, if you would please, clarify the comment about combat skills being basic and for self confidence? Thank you, sir!
 

sandanbob

White Belt
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
As I said in my earlier post, there are many times when a discussion like this requires the participants to understand how the terms are being used. I agree with Mbuzzy on this, but that is because of how I define 'martial arts.'

If your definition, or perception, is different, than that leaves a LOT of room for disagreement.

Here (from dictionary.com) is the definition of martial:

1. inclined or disposed to war; warlike: The ancient Romans were a martial people. 2. of, suitable for, or associated with war or the armed forces: martial music. 3. characteristic of or befitting a warrior: a martial stride.
(I believe that it actually comes from the god of war, Mars.)

There is nothing there about self confidence, physical fitness, mental and spiritual development. It IS all about war. (And, I do agree that it is good for warriors to be physically fit, confident, and morally good people- I just don't see it in the definition.)

Now, I have read Donn Draeger's books, and he actually broke the Japanese arts/ways into bujutsu and budo (classical and modern.) Based on his studies, he felt that that older arts (the 'jutsu') were more combat related, and that newer arts (the 'do', or "ways") moved somewhat away from combat, into the realm of person improvement. (I read the books years ago, but I believe this is a basic summary of his writing.)

So, perhaps we should talk about martial arts and martial ways as two separate entities?

Just an idea.

Bob
 

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
22,040
Reaction score
2,205
Location
Northern VA
The only thing I don't see being talked about is the goal of a martial artist and that of a soldier. The ultimate goal of a martial artist is perfection of one's character and to defend if necessary. A battlefield soldier is trained to kill. I don't see how military could possibly be considered martial arts anymore. Most combat skills taught (not all of course) are basic and more for self-confidence (see boxer rebelion). As if BJJ in a ruck sac or full automatic weapons are really practical. So, compare the goal and the methods and from my view Keith is right on the money. Yes, Im a vet and a martial artist and have been for 35 yrs.
The goal of a martial artist is not necessarily solely personal perfection; many of us train for effective self defense. And soldiers have to have a range of options, from subduing a prisoner to killing an enemy.

I'm liking the phrase "martial science" more and more; it's much more encompassing, and gets away from some of the fru-fru new age stuff. Martial sciences imply the application of principles of reason and science (from East & West) to the problems of combat and war; martial arts -- especially in the West -- has come to carry an emphasis on the aesthetic aspects and the issues of character development. Many coaches will tell you that sports like wrestling or boxing build character -- just like football and baseball do. It's the self-discipline of practice and playing by the rules, as well as handling victory and defeat on the playing field. Nobody pretends that there's some special ability of any sport to improve character -- and nobody should make that claim about training in a martial art, either. It's not the activity -- it's the training and discipline that accompanies the activity that matters.

The character development aspect came to be emphasized in the Japanese arts especially as part of the nationalist build up to WWII, and as a tool to preserve their practice during the years after the war, making them more palatable to the US occupying forces. (I'm trying to summarize a lot quickly, so forgive me for kind of oversimplifying it.)

Training in the martial sciences covers a range of activities, from the kid who's doing "karate" after school (often really TKD) as a day care program, to the father taking it with his kid as a shared activity, to the guy who's just trying to keep in shape and have some fun, through cops and soldiers others training on their own because they realize they will need those skills to defend themselves. The folks who are all about personal development are somewhere in the midpoint of the spectrum.

Basic combative training for the military should and must recognize the range of duties and needs that a modern soldier runs into -- and should also recognize the gear and equipment they carry. Should hand-to-hand or even bayonet be a primary area of training? Probably not. But they must know how to defend themselves effectively, even when no weapons are to hand, or their primary weapons (firearms) fail, too.
 

JiujitsuKid

White Belt
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The word martial science has been around for a long time and just like
martial arts absolutely balls everything into one neat little package it
takes us right back to the beginning of not having a clear definition of
civilian, military, and police tactics convolutes the entire conversation.
All have different objectives in different arenas. Yes, the word Martial
meaning military originated from the God of war Mars but it has evolved
into meaning something completely different. Terms such as Military Science,
Martial Science, Police Science should be clarified and agreed upon that they occasionally overlap but not in the norm.

When dealing with a P.O.W., a bank robber, or a drunken family member, a one
size fits all approach would not be highly recommended.
Why would a civilian have a firearm? For defense.
Why do Police have firearms? For defense and to stop a criminal if necessary.
Why does a Soldier have a Weapon? To Kill (Taking POW is another matter
and a debate for another time).
Why do people take uuuhhhh ...... Martial Science (Karate, Kung-fu, TKD,
JKD, Aikido, etc.) depends on the individual. Certainly not to kill but usually
for defense, Physical Fitness, or Spiritual well-being or all of the above.
The only thing I would like to see is someone clarify what they are
talking about so that someone can decide if they agree, disagree

As for the full-automatic M-16 option was clearly for the soldier experiencing
pucker factor 10 and just needed to know that it was there instead of a single shot
or 3 round burst. Please don't even try to defend that it wasn't for just comfort
and false confidence. I feel the same about BJJ in the Military. I have studied several
fighting arts since 1974 including BJJ since 1985 however; I can't get my head around how rolling around on the ground (although fun) could be practical hand to hand combat. I believe it mostly has to do with the confidence factor.
I know that is offensive to some but that is just my opinion.

_
 

The Last Legionary

All warfare is based on deception.<br><b>nemo malu
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
98
Location
Isle de la Moros
Martial = Military.
Of course, most of what is taught in strip plazas, malls and run down corner shots ain't any more martial than a house cat is a lion. Watered down, subsets, spread out over a decade with extras tacked on for profit.
Then again, tell "mommy" that you'll be teaching her little Jhonny how to snap necks, and pop kidneys and I bet he goes into dance class instead.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,341
Reaction score
4,623
Location
England
Martial = Military.
Of course, most of what is taught in strip plazas, malls and run down corner shots ain't any more martial than a house cat is a lion. Watered down, subsets, spread out over a decade with extras tacked on for profit.
Then again, tell "mommy" that you'll be teaching her little Jhonny how to snap necks, and pop kidneys and I bet he goes into dance class instead.

LOl, you haven't met the kids I train! that's exactly what they want to know and the parents don't mind.
 

chubbybutdangerous

White Belt
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Messages
5
Reaction score
2
Location
Mesa, AZ
I have to agree with you, when soldiers here go to try out for the SAS, you'll see a load of well built fit guys you'd imagine will fly through the selection process with no problems even though it is long and gruelling but the ones who get though are the ones with the mental attitude, the mental strength to keep going and never give up.
Our Royal Marines are judged likewise, it's all in the mind!
Damn good post!
:asian:Ah yes, the notorious Royal Marines! For those that don't know, US and British Marines have quite a relationship. Had the great honor and pleasure of meeting up and training (Read "Drinking":bangahead:) with a few Royal Marines back in the early 80's. None of these men were traditional martial arts masters, but some of THE baddest guys around. Not enough room here for some of the stories...
But the funniest thing was that two of the guys went by the names of "Daisy" and "Jump Bug"!?!? But were still some really bad dudes, and funny as hell (I love Brit humor). Ah... great memories!
 

Hudson69

Brown Belt
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
415
Reaction score
19
Location
Utah
What this all leads to is that I really think there is a separate between martial and civilian arts. In fact, I've begun to refer to karate as a civilian fighting art. It was never intended to be martial in any way. There are a lot of arts that are like this. Sure, they may have applications in the military, but that was never their intent.

Anyway, who else things the martial in the term martial arts is misused?

I agree with this post. How many systems out there have dropped some of their more exotic/militaristic skills because the civillian population really does not need to know/learn them (probably the most evident form of this, for me, is Budo Taijutsu) and focus only on the hand to hand portion and some archaic weaponry. I cannot speak for the systems that incorporate modern weapons.

Then look at what the military teaches; fitness, at least one weapon system (M4/M16) and usually more, outdoor survival, land navigation, camouflage, individual and group/team movement, radio/communication skills a complete martial art in a different focus (if you are in a combat/security/police MOS then you can really nail down some skills).

Besides the military and its more complete martial training another career to look at is law enforcement (yah, yah, I fall under this heading and am a military guy as well so I am biased, sue me). We teach a very basic skill set usually called Defensive Tactics or Arrest Control. We have refresher/new training every year (sometimes more if time allows) and issue a belt upon graduation (a gun belt:wink1:) and there are set hours that have to be completed in each skill area with pass/fail tests. Additionally look at all of the companion skills that go with it; firearms (pistol, rifle & shotgun), baton, pepper-spray, taser, handcuffing, building clearing, driving, interviewing, surveillance, contact & cover and more. Talk about a complete martial system/art.

Just my .02.
 

Draven

Green Belt
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
180
Reaction score
6
The problem with Karate started after it became a sport, then kata competitions added more forms, the grappling techniques were dropped because of "sports application" and poof it became a striking only system. Same for Judo atemi-waza wasn't permitted in competition and schools drew students off of competitons so it slowly became less and less required as an area of study.

Now people think Tai Chi is for fittness is a martial art & start including yoga (damn streetfighter video games), then it became about being only a sport or only a historical tradition (historical LARPing really) & so few other areas of study. Now the term MA is too general to mean anything...
 

Beehive Kenpo

White Belt
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Ok I am part of the army and yes the army goes to others for martial arts but all branches has to do it. I know of few big name Kenpoist that have gone and helped SF and so on. now I got to say that the marines are pretty good at what they do but I have meet quite a few of them that have switch over to the army. the army is currently revamping there hand to hand combat. right now they have four levels. they are not that bad actually. level one starts out with basic Jiu Jitsu which they brought in the Gracie family to help them with and level one is a week long and it starts at 0600 and goes tell 1700 or later you are covered in sweet the with in the first hour and other course I am not sure about but they are no joke and great training. the difference here between the army hand to hand and the civilian world training is we can get away with really going all out in our training it hurts and you end up with some serious issues. but no matter what the branch the marnies are just the marnies nothing more than any other part of the military.
 

SahBumNimRush

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
100
Location
USA
I have not served in the armed forces, so I cannot personally attest to what kind of hand to hand training goes on. That being said I do know several black belts in my association were hand to hand instructors in the army and marine corp because of their background in Moo Duk Kwan TKD. Also I know the hand to hand instructor at the Naval Academy, John Critzos III. He is a 7th dan (my Kwan Jang Nim just recently tested him), and he was originally trained under Ki Whang Kim.

So my .02 is that while the curriculum in the armed forces may not be well structured, I can attest to the fact that they have/had some great instructors. From what I understand, those in the marine corp, army, etc. with solid martial arts experience end up teaching it there.

Most everyone of my instructors were in the Marine Corp, Navy, Army, or ROK army. Most of them during the Vietnam war. My Kwan Jang Nim was the hand to hand instructor for the ROK Army 9th Division during the Vietnam war, and he was also the hand to hand instructor for the U.S. Army 8th Division stationed in Korea at the time as well.
 

Touch Of Death

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
11,610
Reaction score
844
Location
Spokane Valley WA
The problem with Karate started after it became a sport, then kata competitions added more forms, the grappling techniques were dropped because of "sports application" and poof it became a striking only system. Same for Judo atemi-waza wasn't permitted in competition and schools drew students off of competitons so it slowly became less and less required as an area of study.

Now people think Tai Chi is for fittness is a martial art & start including yoga (damn streetfighter video games), then it became about being only a sport or only a historical tradition (historical LARPing really) & so few other areas of study. Now the term MA is too general to mean anything...
Karate was a sport the day it was invented.
Sean
 

DBZ

Orange Belt
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
83
Reaction score
2
Location
Ohio
I have been reading this thread for a bit and was holding off on posting(seems to be quite alot of marines on here lol) My cousin(A Marine) and I have had a conversation very close to this one. The training we were given in "BCT" or "boot camp" on combatives was small on both sides. But we both since then have learned from some great guys( I had a SF SFC that was amazing) BUT to me there is nothing "martial art" about military combatives training. Mind set is very different.
 
Top