Are Striking and kicking based Arts a priority for Defence Force Members?

DaBrow

Apologies in advance if this thread may appear irrelevant*...

I've had a few threads and from past research; Ireland has a small yet very respected and highly capable Defence Forces, but I can't help but feel we are vulnerable in the field of unarmed combat.

We have one of the best Special Forces in the World, but Why is it Judo so far is the only Martial Art that appears to be taught to Active Personnel?

Are other Disciplines taught too?

I have looked at listed activities/training (Via a Cadetship Booklet from a few years back) that Active Members partake within and the only "Martial Art" taught or practised regularly is really in a sense a Sport.

Strategically Speaking if true, I think this is bad... Very Bad

It looks like Striking and Kicking Based Fighting Arts are seriously absent from Irish Defence Force training; Fighting Arts like Taekwondo, Karate, Jiu Jitsu and another Art are an Integral part of any curriculum to other International militaries.

As an example.... Basic Ranks are taught the Traditional Arts if not already hold experience.

Anyone who Serves in the Republic of Korea Special Unit "707th Special Mission Battalion" is expected to be at least a 1st Dan i.e. Taekwondo.

P.S.

This is curiosity

*Makikomi

Doug Cartel

Mainly because they have guns.

Also, even back in the days before firearms, martial arts as you know them were never taught to rank and file soldiers. They would primarily be taught how to move and fight in formation and work as a single unit. Only knights and the like would be concerned with learning duelling skills like you have described.

I hope that helps answer your question.

DaBrow

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Mainly because they have guns.

Also, even back in the days before firearms, martial arts as you know them were never taught to rank and file soldiers. They would primarily be taught how to move and fight in formation and work as a single unit. Only knights and the like would be concerned with learning duelling skills like you have described.

I hope that helps answer your question.

I'm not so sure to be honest.

The Korean Military teaches its soldiers both professional and conscripts Martial Art techniques, I understand that it has largely to do with their partition being more turbulent and tension bound with bitter enemies watching each other constantly...

But surely a neutral state soldier should have the same set of unarmed combat skills as deterent?

Doug Cartel

DaBrow wrote: »

I'm not so sure to be honest.

The Korean Military teaches its soldiers both professional and conscripts Martial Art techniques, I understand that it has largely to do with their partition being more turbulent and tension bound with bitter enemies watching each other constantly...

But surely a neutral state soldier should have the same set of unarmed combat skills as deterent?

They teach them TKD because it's good exercise and it helps increase aggression. Judo will do that just as well.

Do you seriously think that the martial arts skills of an army act as any kind of deterrent? Nuclear bombs act as a deterrent. NATO acts as a deterrent. TKD is not a deterrent.

DaBrow

Doug Cartel wrote: »

They teach them TKD because it's good exercise and it helps increase aggression. Judo will do that just as well.

Do you seriously think that the martial arts skills of an army act as any kind of deterrent? Nuclear bombs act as a deterrent. NATO acts as a deterrent. TKD is not a deterrent.

I think having Soldiers whom are highly trained in Martial Arts is a good deterent...

If they were unarmed they could be just as lethal without a gun in their hand

Judo has some benefits but it is considerably flawed, in the sense it has limited techniques at its disposal i.e. Mainly Throwing your opponent.

A striking based Art like Karate has Throwing, Punches & Hand Strikes, Kicks along with Blocks and Pressure point attacks which would cause alot of damage to any enemy...

I'm respectfully just trying to highlight real combat won't exclusively involve a simple set of techniques if it happens... It involves the hands, legs and anything else of practical use.

A real fight won't be won by throwing alone, especially if the opponent is immune to it.

Doug Cartel

DaBrow wrote: »

I think having Soldiers whom are highly trained in Martial Arts is a good deterent...

If they were unarmed they could be just as lethal without a gun in their hand

The forum rules prevent me from calling you an idiot and making fun of you, so I guess I'll have to excuse myself from this thread now.

Good bye.

DaBrow

Doug Cartel wrote: »

The forum rules prevent me from calling you an idiot and making fun of you, so I guess I'll have to excuse myself from this thread now.

Good bye.

Making fun of someone and calling them names only shows that you can't argue maturely.

I don't expect everyone to agree, but they at least could give reasoning for why don't support the view of someone else.

Dyr

The correct answer to your question is: No, they are not a priority for the defence forces. For the same reason that they haven't been a priority for any armed force since the bronze age. Hands and feet are useless for killing people in comparison to weapons

Also: Have you ever been thrown by a judo practitioner?

DaBrow

Bambi wrote: »

Also: Have you ever been thrown by a judo practitioner?

Yes I have been, but I have also been thrown by Karateka aswell...

Both systems have their flaws but Judo isn't solely reliant as a system of self-defence especially when dealing with more than one opponent.

I don't see why the Irish Defence Forces cannot include Striking or Hybrid fighting styles as part of their training... Along with Judo, but not solely rely on it.

Grappling only works if you can get very close to your opponent but not if they can keep you at a distance.

BobbyOLeary

Grappling only works if you can get very close to your opponent but not if they can keep you at a distance.

Similarly striking only works if you can get close to your opponent but not if they can keep you at a distance by shooting at you.

cowzerp

Boxing is trained in the army and they also compete, and on the topic of been just as dangerous without a gun, :rolleyes:

scuttery1

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhxDQgbuZ3o
From my limited exposure to people who have dealt with the Military, the more "specialised" the unit the more “advanced” the training. The average "soldier" is taught a basic empty hand skill set that focuses on weapon retention & reacquiring a weapon.

Dyr

cowzerp wrote: »

Boxing is trained in the army and they also compete, and on the topic of been just as dangerous without a gun, :rolleyes:

Did'nt the army used to do their own hand to hand combat material too? I know they had some jujutsu guys working with them for a while.

DaBrow

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Similarly striking only works if you can get close to your opponent but not if they can keep you at a distance by shooting at you.

A gun is only very useful if it has Ammo in the magazine, when it runs out... You're in trouble and need a quick substitute.

From my own point of view, Striking can work from a distance if you have a incredible reach at your disposal... Height allows you to kick or strike from a about a metre away, which can keep the opponent at a harmless distance while you continue to weaken them.

However, I do agree that its effectiveness is greater when close to the opponent...

Striking can work work at short and long distance... Grappling alone cannot.

pablohoney87

DaBrow wrote: »

A gun is only very useful if it has Ammo in the magazine, when it runs out... You're in trouble and need a quick substitute.

You could always throw it at them.:D
I think your odds would be similar as taking up your karate stance against an armed opponent.
Its pretty unlikely both of you will run out of ammo before they kill each other.

Maguined

I believe the idea is that modern warfare rarely ever includes hand to hand combat and when it does it normally involves urban combat where a soldier might be entering a building and get jumped by someone in the close confines and their weapon knocked to the ground. Instead of a protracted kicking and punching contest between two warriors to satisfy their honour it is considered more practical to throw your opponent to the ground thereby creating distance between yourself and your opponent so your friends can shoot him.

Its modern warfare, you do not go around like Rambo on your own taking out legions of enemies with your M60, you have lots of colleagues watching your back so why risk a swirling melee of fist and kicks when you can just shoot your opponent or have your mates do it.

I think you are overly romanticising the martial arts DaBrow.

Niall Keane

Apologies in advance if this thread may appear irrelevant*...

I've had a few threads and from past research; Ireland has a small yet very respected and highly capable Defence Forces, but I can't help but feel we are vulnerable in the field of unarmed combat.

We have one of the best Special Forces in the World, but Why is it Judo so far is the only Martial Art that appears to be taught to Active Personnel?

Are other Disciplines taught too?

I have looked at listed activities/training (Via a Cadetship Booklet from a few years back) that Active Members partake within and the only "Martial Art" taught or practised regularly is really in a sense a Sport.

Strategically Speaking if true, I think this is bad... Very Bad

I don’t have access to my Library at the moment, but I’ll paste the quotes later.
Regarding unarmed combat and military relevance, even from a historical perspective General Ch’I Chi-Kuang of the 16th century writer of the Classic of Boxing “Chuan Ching”, states that boxing has no military purpose other than to strengthen and instil bravery in troops, he does say that unarmed combat is the foundation of weapon skill, but states that time should be spent on formation training and battle field strategies. A contemporary of his, sorry the name escapes me, but also famous for military classics describes how a particular martial artist of his time was invincible and like a tiger, and how another’s style couldn’t be beaten, but then states that “these men are useless for military purposes”.

I guess it comes down to the difference between a soldier and a warrior. A Jin Ke or Knight Errant needed duelling skills certainly, his martial art was about self preservation, and therein lies the conflict. A soldier must be trained to carry out orders “bravely” without question, when a general / commander decides to sacrifice a tenth of his forces as bait to draw out an enemy, so that he can flank / ambush that enemy this is a necessary and efficient tactic. Not to sacrifice the tenth could mean the destruction of all? A soldiers training should ensure that he carries out such orders without question, and without trying to do things better, deliberation or assessment of instructions would cost time and lose the opportunity.

A “warrior” by his very nature expects no man to bow to him, and bows to no man”, he will not take orders, as he cannot be dominated, to acknowledge subservience is to demean one mentally, or to have less than 100% intent. Again what I’m talking about is self reliance. A fighter trains to not show but to ignore injury, as to show such weakness encourages an opponent, gives him encouragement or a second wind, and increases the probability of defeat. Soldiers can be rotated, allowing one to replace another, so they are not over stretched or over burdened, they get their R&R which is important to have a fresh and powerful army, but this is at odds to the necessity to accept what seems hopeless and to continue to fight: "You must die erect and invincible. It is not important if we gain more days or even years in our life, but it does matter very much how we die. We were born in a merciless world." (Seneca: Epistulae 37,2) This may seem harsh, but as many with ring experience ( a pale comparison, I agree) will tell you, sometimes the difference to winning a fight and losing it is in seeing the expression of pain or surrender in the opponents expressions, you can both be feeling equally destroyed, but that look of defeat in your opponent gives you the hope of victory that lifts your game entirely as long as you have had the intent not to consider defeat . In other words the tide can change very quickly and at any time, a defeatist or reliant attitude is anathema t a fighter / warrior. In military terms this attitude could lead to a brave but senseless waste of your human resources?

Of course this calls into question the relatively new phenomenon of grades and belts in some martial arts. Arts coming from military backgrounds would seem to have good reason for such, instilling respect and compliance with your senior officer’s commands, replicating a “chain of command”. For the Knight errant, the warrior, those interested in self preservation, and whose idea of virtue is fighting alone against the odds, I’ve yet to be convinced.

Boston

You'll hear a lot of crap about what is taught to the military and what should be. Most of the martial arts you could name aren't practical. I recall reading an account by manic moran of the martial arts training he's received over the years. He's in the US Cav and they train in holding out. No fancy kicks, punch or throws. If you have a gun, shoot the guy, if you don't have a gun you try to hold him down while utilising your body armour to protect yourself. The idea is that you shouldn't be trying to kill the other chap, just survive long enough for your team mate to come along a shoot him in the head. That seems sensible.

Lab_Mouse

perhaps post over on the military.There are a few lads there in army aswell as a few serving in the british and american armies.

Edit:I also think maikomi is a serving soldier so he might shed more light on it

BigDuffman

In the DF / any military a soldier in most situations will have his hands full with a weapon. If your empty handed and your opponent is rocking an assault rifle something has gone wrong! Also they will more often than not be wearing Tac Vests / Webbing so kicking beyond distance making is impractical.

Due to the change in modern warfare engagement distances are getting smaller. So some form of MA is obviously necessary.

Skills in control & restraint and weapon retention are far more important than round housing! So a style like TKD is not particularly relevant. In an ideal world all the lads in green would have the time, ability and resources to be MA supremos but they are professional soldiers pursuing a career. So dedicating time and training towards something that is not going to be immediately necessary is not a huge priority. Although plenty do pursue their interests on the side.

There is a strong Boxing and Judo presence in the DF as it is.

Judo principals are of obvious benefit to anyone in close encounter. As previously mentioned unless your SF your not going to need to be a sneaky beaky ninja facing off against steven segal! Strength of numbers and as mentioned by boston literally jumping on the f**ker is quite effective.

"Practical" MAs such as KM has been used to great effect in the Israeli DF and has proved popular with DF members over here. Also MCMAP is quite interesting and very practical.

DaBrow

Maguined wrote: »

I think you are overly romanticising the martial arts DaBrow.

I don't believe so Maguined, If you find yourself without a firearm by an opponent who isn't armed with a firearm also... You need to be prepared for that.


Take a look at these fellows They are the 707th Special Mission Battalion, this demonstration proves that unarmed combat is an equal neccessity aswell as firearms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RzXDUtmqA4&feature=related

Watch 4mins into it

P.S. Duffman, I'm glad to see that someone else things that Martial Arts are necessary in our own military.

pablohoney87

DaBrow wrote: »

P.S. Duffman, I'm glad to see that someone else things that Martial Arts are necessary in our own military.

Nobody is debating whether martial arts are necessary in the military or not. We are debating the point you brought up in the title whether they should practice striking arts or not.
Most people think its quite unnecessary today as most military personel wear sum kind of body armour and helmet. Should you find yourself in the unlikely event that neither person has a gun the best thing to to is to incapacitate them and call for back up. (not necessarily in that order) You arent going to knock their head off with big fancy TKD kicks and even mike tyson probably would have trouble landing a KO punch on a kevlar helmet(if thats what they make them from these days). Thats why Judo and certain aspects of Krav Maga are used. They are about incapacitating your opponent with minimal engagement.
Plus most soldiers will also carry a side arm and/or knife i suppose. (Correct me if im wrong)

DaBrow

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Nobody is debating whether martial arts are necessary in the military or not. We are debating the point you brought up in the title whether they should practice striking arts or not.
Most people think its quite unnecessary today as most military personel wear sum kind of body armour and helmet. Should you find yourself in the unlikely event that neither person has a gun the best thing to to is to incapacitate them and call for back up. (not necessarily in that order) You arent going to knock their head off with big fancy TKD kicks and even mike tyson probably would have trouble landing a KO punch on a kevlar helmet(if thats what they make them from these days). Thats why Judo and certain aspects of Krav Maga are used. They are about incapacitating your opponent with minimal engagement.
Plus most soldiers will also carry a side arm and/or knife i suppose. (Correct me if im wrong)

I think if you see the youtube link, you might see where I'm coming from...

I apologise, I was mistaken on my part. I'm trying to argue that other Martial Arts should be either taught aswell

I don't think we should entirely rely on Grappling Arts like Judo for self-defence/Combat Scenarios... I think we should also have other Striking/Hybrid arts at our disposal to fill the flaws we currently possess.

As for Krav Maga, I won't go into it but I'd rather use Japanese, Chinese or Korean Systems than that discipline.

onlyasuggestion

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Plus most soldiers will also carry a side arm and/or knife i suppose. (Correct me if im wrong)

i would imagine it's mostly officers who carry sidearms although others carry bayonets. could be wrong though

pablohoney87

DaBrow wrote: »

I think if you see the youtube link, you might see where I'm coming from...

I apologise, I was mistaken on my part. I'm trying to argue that other Martial Arts should be either taught aswell

I don't think we should entirely rely on Grappling Arts like Judo for self-defence/Combat Scenarios... I think we should also have other Striking/Hybrid arts at our disposal to fill the flaws we currently possess.

As for Krav Maga, I won't go into it but I'd rather use Japanese, Chinese or Korean Systems than that discipline.

Dont have the flash to watch the vid. Will watch later.

Why would you rather use the asian martial which are in most cases either out dated or in the case of TKD impractical?
Just out of curiosity do you think the far eastern MA's are superior in some way?

DaBrow

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Dont have the flash to watch the vid. Will watch later.

Why would you rather use the asian martial which are in most cases either out dated or in the case of TKD impractical?
Just out of curiosity do you think the far eastern MA's are superior in some way?

Their Warrior History with Unarmed Combat is alot stronger than ours....

The Koreans had the Hwrang - Hapkido, Hwrang-Do, Taekwondo, Kumdo

The Japanese had the Samurai - Jiu Jitsu, Karate, Kendo, Iaido

The Chinese have the Shaolin Monks - Dragon Fist, Wing Chun, Drunken Fist

All their national Forces use Martial Arts that have elements of Striking, Grappling or are entirely Hybrid which encompass the two.

pablohoney87

DaBrow wrote: »

Their Warrior History with Unarmed Combat is alot stronger than ours....

The Koreans had the Hwrang

The Japanese had the Samurai

The Chinese have the Shaolin Monks

And we had the celts. The reason these styles have become outdated is because of many of the schools in the east believing that their style is superior because of their heritage and do not evolve their style. I know if i had the choice between facing a korean soldier with his TKD and Hwrang warrior spirit and a Russian soldier with Their combination of Judo and Sambo ad much rather take my chances getting kicked with my helmet on.

Khannie

DaBrow wrote: »

I think having Soldiers whom are highly trained in Martial Arts is a good deterent...

I think having soldiers trained in Judo is more of a deterrant than having soldies trained in TKD tbh. Given the choice, I'd rather take my chances against a skilled TKD practitioner than a skilled Judoka. If you were looking for a striking martial art, I would think that Muay Thai or Boxing would be more effective striking arts than TKD or Karate or whatever*.

*note that I am not dissing these martial arts. To each their own etc.

Boston wrote: »

The idea is that you shouldn't be trying to kill the other chap, just survive long enough for your team mate to come along a shoot him in the head. That seems sensible.

Entirely.


edit: Also, (and I'll try to dig this out) but I read an article where several top end Muay Thai fighters were asked what weapons they used in a street fight (elbows, knees, kicks, etc.). The answer was almostly exclusively "punches". Kicks, with the possible exception of low kicks, are ludicrously dangerous to attempt in an uncontrolled environment. You're horribly off balance.

Maguined

DaBrow I think you just proved my point that you are over romanticising the martial arts, specifically the asian arts.

Welcome to 2010, there are no warriors in modern armies, there are soldiers, soldiers do not concern themselves with honourably duelling their opponents in a fair fight of melee, soldiers use every advantage they can muster to kill their enemy as efficiently as possible, preferably at range.

Your rejection of Krav Maga over asian martial arts not based on logic or reason but purely out of a romantic notion that asians have a greater warrior tradition culture than anyone else is quite ridiculous.

Your example of one unit of one countries army being trained in TKD as "proof" is quite laughable considering the vast majority all all other units in all other nations army do not consider such striking martial arts as important enough to warrant specific time dedicated to their training.

DaBrow

Khannie wrote: »

I think having soldiers trained in Judo is more of a deterrant than having soldiers trained in TKD tbh.

Why exclusively Judo?

Why not something Hybrid that encompasses Strikes & Grappling?

pablohoney87

Kinda startin to feel like im talkin to a wall here.
Soldiers wear protective gear. This makes much of the striking obsulete. Also striking arts rarely work techniques which would effectively disarm an opponent effectively.
When judo is used in the armed forces it normally incorperates disarming techniques.(Excuse the spelling errors)

DaBrow

Maguined wrote: »

Your example of one unit of one countries army being trained in TKD as "proof" is quite laughable considering the vast majority all all other units in all other nations army do not consider such striking martial arts as important enough to warrant specific time dedicated to their training.

They are not just a unit... This is one group of Several in the ROK Army whom are taught to fight as dangerously without weapons and using various techniques to subdue their opponent.

This is no different to their counterparts in Peoples Republic of China, Japan or Republic of China "Taiwan".

They Train for every unarmed and armed situation that can occur...

"A warrior is a person engaged or experienced in warfare or figuratively a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness"

That definition fits the soldier of today as is not any different... Some think that the title belongs exclusively to an ancient band like the Fianna, it isn't the case.

Boston

Maguined wrote: »

DaBrow I think you just proved my point that you are over romanticising the martial arts, specifically the asian arts.

Welcome to 2010, there are no warriors in modern armies, there are soldiers, soldiers do not concern themselves with honourably duelling their opponents in a fair fight of melee, soldiers use every advantage they can muster to kill their enemy as efficiently as possible, preferably at range.

Your rejection of Krav Maga over asian martial arts not based on logic or reason but purely out of a romantic notion that asians have a greater warrior tradition culture than anyone else is quite ridiculous.

Your example of one unit of one countries army being trained in TKD as "proof" is quite laughable considering the vast majority all all other units in all other nations army do not consider such striking martial arts as important enough to warrant specific time dedicated to their training.

Krav Maga looks pretty deadly, but I've never seen someone do it in full tactical gear.

DaBrow wrote: »

Why exclusively Judo?

Why not something Hybrid that encompasses Strikes & Grappling?

Judo is a sport about hold downs and take downs. If you punch a man in body army, the only thing you'll do is break your hand. Kicks to the ribs, side, legs will be equally ineffective. If will however be able to trip, sweap and in some cases thrown him. One there you'll be able to effective hold him down.

Maguined

Efficiency.

You could train each and every soldier to pilot every single tank and helicopter available in the armies, but that is not efficient use of their time.

A soldier will primarily need to be fit and have enough cardio to do their duties, and they will need to have battlefield tactics and communication skills to work as a team, they will also need to be able to handle their weapons proficiently. Out of all this handling of weapons realistically hand to hand combat would be a pretty small chance of being needed as the vast majority of the time they will be shooting their guns and getting shot at by the enemy with their guns.

If a soldier only has X amount of hours in a day to train, they will prioritise the most important and efficient skills to get the vast majority of their time with fringe skills getting less time. For a modern soldier, his time is spent on exercise to develop his body physically, tactics and strategies so he can work as a unit and how to aim and fire and maintain his weapon.

If you ask him to devote an hour or two each day to learn how to kick and punch like a TKD or one of its hybrids what would you recommend they spend less time on their regular training to devote to this striking arts?

DaBrow

Boston wrote: »

Krav Maga looks pretty deadly, but I've never seen someone do it in full tactical gear.

Judo is a sport about hold downs and take downs. If you punch a man in body army, the only thing you'll do is break your hand. Kicks to the ribs, side, legs will be equally ineffective. If will however be able to trip, sweap and in some cases thrown him. One there you'll be able to effective hold him down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxcCJXbMmUU&feature=related

These guys are wearing armour and I think Striking Arts are practical, despite some scepticism.

KUNG FU - FUERZAS ESPECIALES DE CHINA SPECIAL FORCE (Taiwan)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9-VOyVMu4

I see no reason, why we can't encourage this?
Why do people think it isn't required, especially when an enemy is unarmed and attacking you?

Maguined wrote: »

Efficiency.
If you ask him to devote an hour or two each day to learn how to kick and punch like a TKD or one of its hybrids what would you recommend they spend less time on their regular training to devote to this striking arts?

I'd imagine once they are trained and compotent in Weapons Firing... All they need to do is practise every so often for accuracy.

When someone achieves something or becomes familiar with required skills, they move on and learn new things... Like an Average Martial Art Student.

pablohoney87

And on the modern battle field and with debris and bricks everwhere, how do you expect a soldier to be able to throw those spin kicks without hitting a wall or tripping over a brick?

Boston

DaBrow wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxcCJXbMmUU&feature=related

These guys are wearing armour and I think Striking Arts are practical, despite some scepticism.

They're not wearing body armour and they're doing judo trips.

DaBrow wrote: »

Why do people think it isn't required, especially when an enemy is unarmed and attacking you?

If the enemy is unarmed, smash him with yer rifle.

Maguined

DaBrow wrote: »

They are not just a unit... This is one group of Several in the ROK Army whom are taught to fight as dangerously without weapons and using various techniques to subdue their opponent.

This is no different to their counterparts in Peoples Republic of China, Japan or Republic of China "Taiwan".

They Train for every unarmed and armed situation that can occur...

Again I notice you only quote Asian countries, where is your proof of any european, african, north-american or southern american armies that train in such striking arts as part of their core curriculum?

Plenty of more technologically advanced and equipped armies have rejected such training as being a standard as useless due to modern armour and equipment, it comes back to the basis that it is more efficient to evade/restrain your assailant so your squadmate can shoot him rather than spend hundreds of hours learning to throw a fancy spinning kick that would be difficult to pull off in weighty combat gear or close confined rooms where this theoretical melee is taking place.

DaBrow wrote: »

"A warrior is a person engaged or experienced in warfare or figuratively a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness"

That definition fits the soldier of today as is not any different... Some think that the title belongs exclusively to an ancient band like the Fianna, it isn't the case.

Yes a warrior can be a soldier but a soldier is not necessarily a warrior. Soldiers are professionals paid to go to war, they do not necessarily need to be vigorous, full of courage or very aggressive, as long as they can follow orders efficiently they can be quite lethal killers, hence why modern soldiers with better equipment and training can inflict tremendous casualties and win the day over less equipped and trained enemies in great numbers who might be full of bravery and a warrior spirit, but that doesnt protect them from a bullet.

Boston, I was not really advocating my support for Krav Maga as being an efficient system, merely saying that rejecting it because it is not Asian and does not come from a culture with an asian warrior spirit is a stupid reason to criticise and reject it.

DaBrow

pablohoney87 wrote: »

And on the modern battle field and with debris and bricks everwhere, how do you expect a soldier to be able to throw those spin kicks without hitting a wall or tripping over a brick?

I imagine the risk comes with the territory of possibly being killed by various means on a battlefield or in a pinned down location where Close Quarter Combat is essential.

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 has a scene at the end where it is unarmed combat with the villain; you see punches, strikes, kicks etc and people call it the most realistic war game ever.

pablohoney87

DaBrow wrote: »

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 has a scene at the end where it is unarmed combat with the villain; you see punches, strikes, kicks etc and people call it the most realistic war game ever.

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

DaBrow

Boston wrote: »

They're not wearing body armour and they're doing judo trips.

Those takedowns are found in Karate, Jiu Jitsu and Aikido... Judo doesn't have kicks or a great deal of strikes in its curriculum.

Boston wrote: »

If the enemy is unarmed, smash him with yer rifle.

Please imagine a scenario, where you don't have a rifle to fight with or the opponent... It is completely hand to hand.

It is not that uncommon in a CQB situation when taking prisoners...

pablohoney87

DaBrow wrote: »

Please imagine a scenario, where you don't have a rifle to fight with or the opponent... It is completely hand to hand.

It is not that uncommon

On the battle field it most certainly is.

Khannie

DaBrow wrote: »

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 has a scene at the end where it is unarmed combat with the villain; you see punches, strikes, kicks etc and people call it the most realistic war game ever.

I just dunno what to say to this.

DaBrow

pablohoney87 wrote: »

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

Don't sigh at me please...

I'm merely highlighting that even popular culture can be realistic and show the neccessity of something.

Are you saying that Kicks, Punces, Strikes and Blocks won't happen in a real fight?

Of course they would.

Khannie wrote: »

I just dunno what to say to this.

Please See the second line

Doug Cartel

I heart this thread!

pablohoney87

Im not saying they wouldnt happen. Im saying the situation on the battlefield is very unlikely and that they would prove ineffective against an armoured opponent who was also a skilled grappler. In this situation the good old temple bar tactic of call for your mates is always best.

Maguined

DaBrow wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxcCJXbMmUU&feature=related

These guys are wearing armour and I think Striking Arts are practical, despite some scepticism.

KUNG FU - FUERZAS ESPECIALES DE CHINA SPECIAL FORCE (Taiwan)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9-VOyVMu4

I see no reason, why we can't encourage this?
Why do people think it isn't required, especially when an enemy is unarmed and attacking you?

Yeah they are wearing pads and armour while doing a fully co-operative demonstration with premeditated move sequences, hopefully your enemy will be as nice and compliant.

DaBrow wrote: »

I'd imagine once they are trained and compotent in Weapons Firing... All they need to do is practise every so often for accuracy.

When someone achieves something or becomes familiar with required skills, they move on and learn new things... Like an Average Martial Art Student.

I would disagree, when you learn a technique I think people need to constantly practice the technique otherwise they forget it fully and can be sloppy. I think most martial artists going into a proper fight would prepare as much as possible in advance, train even harder so the skills are at their peak rather than assuming they have been taught well in the past so its okay to just rely on the fact they were thought something months/years ago. Hence we have terms like "ring rust" where a fighter has been trained expertly but just didnt train hard enough shortly before a fight. If i was going into a modern war and I had the choice of what the spend my last few hours drilling my weapons and tactics rather than a fancy spinning kick.

DaBrow

I'm only going to say this once....

But I'm getting very annoyed with some people who are just posting Immature smartalic answers on this thread.

I'm really tempted now to leave boards.ie and post a complaint... Every thread that I seem to start turns into a circus because people have no sense of discipline.

I cannot express how serious the need for Striking or Hybrid Martial Arts in Our Defence Forces really is... Judo was fine back in the 50's, 60's or early 70's maybe when the world wasn't as dangerous. Now the danger is greater and I feel that currently relying on Judo is very outdated, we need to be proactive and look east where they expect the worst in unarmed/armed combat.

I think Asian Martial Arts are essential and required because from videos I have posted, you can see they are experts in this field... It has long been their tradition and even with modern warfare and weapons, they expect police and soldiers to be effective off duty and unarmed i.e. Days off or Holiday.


There seems to be a dreadful arrogance that we possess... "Oh No, we'll be fine... Everybody loves us" "That'll never happen".

Ireland isn't immune anymore to external threats... We are not immune to violence in Society or having Off-Duty Soldiers/Gardai on or off the beat being attacked.

This is why I believe a mature discussion is needed...

Please do not act like children or try and make me look like a fool... I demand the same respect I show each of you when responding to your threads.

Go raibh Maith agat.

pablohoney87

I am not trying to be a smartarse or anything. But whenever anyone disagrees with you you dont acknowledge their point. You either just reiterate your own or just move onto your next point.
We listened to your point and nobody as of yet has agreed with you that there is a need for it. The world is not more dangerous because our soldier can be punched in the face. What makes the world more dangerous.
Suicide Bombers
Nuclear bombs
Opressive autocracies
aparthide.
Dilusions of martyrdom

Teaching our soldiers fancy punches and kicks wont stop these things.

Maguined

DaBrow this is a discussion board, we are discussing your points offered, it looks like the majority of people posting to this thread disagree with you and are offering you more logical and sound reasons on why they disagree with you while you resort to just regurgitation your same old points over and over instead of dealing with the counter points, or you post some video from youtube of pre-rehearsed demonstrations, if i got 50 of my mates and a video camera and showed you a video of me kicking their asses would you respect me as some lethal killing machine in the martial arts?

If you cannot handle people disagreeing with your opinion maybe boards is not the place for you, if on the other hand you stick around and pay attention to other peoples counter points to your own and look at the logic behind them it just might broaden your horizons in a positive manner.

DaBrow

Maguined wrote: »

DaBrow this is a discussion board, we are discussing your points offered, it looks like the majority of people posting to this thread disagree with you and are offering you more logical and sound reasons on why they disagree with you while you resort to just regurgitation your same old points over and over instead of dealing with the counter points, or you post some video from youtube of pre-rehearsed demonstrations, if i got 50 of my mates and a video camera and showed you a video of me kicking their asses would you respect me as some lethal killing machine in the martial arts?

If you cannot handle people disagreeing with your opinion maybe boards is not the place for you, if on the other hand you stick around and pay attention to other peoples counter points to your own and look at the logic behind them it just might broaden your horizons in a positive manner.

I have not regurgitated anything... I am trying to ask why other forms of Martial Arts are not taught to the Irish Defence Forces.

Instead of mature debate, the answers so far have been far from logical and only bring the forum's credibility down.

"You don't need Martial Arts when you have guns!" - Why is Judo only utilised?

"If you run out of ammo, hit them with your rifle!"- What can you do when face an opponent and the firearm can't function?

"What use are spinning kicks on a battlefield anyway?" - Why rely purely on grappling when it is very limited in effectiveness.
.........

There are no excuses why we cannot have the same sort of Martial Arts Taught in our Defence Forces like they have for Japan, Korea and China.

I can handle people disagreeing with me.... But just saying that they are not required is not good enough.

Savate (A Striking Art) is taught to French Police, Army and its Special Forces along with a few other Martial Arts; do they perform the same duties as our Gardai, Army and the Rangers? Yes

So How come grappling is seen as the answer to all the possible scenarios that can emerge? That for fact isn't the case.