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)