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

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.

pablohoney87

DaBrow wrote: »

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.

There was nothing imature about any of the points made. Might i ask is there striking martial art taught to the army of a nation where that art has not originated from that nation. Maybe its a matter of pride or ego?

Purely put in a one on one situation grappling is more effective than most forms of striking and many of the asian martial arts are outdated and ineffective. The evolution of MMA has shown this. Also savate to me really looks like a less effective form of muay thai. They teach good technique but have limited rules.

Doug Cartel

DaBrow wrote: »

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

Training in martial arts helps increase aggression and instil a warrior spirit. It's also good exercise. Judo and boxing do a fine job at this, that is why you don't need any more.

"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?

hit them with your rifle, stab them with your bayonet, throw a brick at them, push them away and get one of your friends to shoot them.

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

Despite what you've seen in the cartoons, grappling is much more effective than spinning kicks. Soldiers only have a finite amount of time to learn different skills, why waste their time on things that are almost no use?

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.

There's judo and boxing. Job done.

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

Your method of handling people who disagree with you is to put either your fingers in your ears and repeat your initial argument, or to tell everyone they're being mean and unreasonable.

Savate (A Striking Art) is taught to French Police, Army and its Special Forces along with a few other Martial Arts;

Good for them.

do they perform the same duties as our Gardai, Army and the Rangers? Yes

So?

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

It's not the answer to all possible scenarios, but it is sufficient to cover most of the more likely ones. It's not ideal, but in an ideal world there would be no war and they wouldn't have to learn any fighting skills.

Maguined

Each one of your questions has been answered numerous times over yet you do not acknowledge that, because it is counter to what you want you dismiss it outright rather than discuss it.

You can't complain about immature debates and the credibility of the forum when you claim modern warfare 2 as a credible proof that punching and striking is required in the army because it is a "realistic" game.

"Why is Judo only utilised?" - because many in the army believe striking is inefficient to modern soldiers due to armour and gear being cumbersome, they believe it is far more effect to restrain your opponent, preferably by throwing them to the ground and then holding them there so your fellow soldiers can shoot them, throwing and holding hence judo and other grappling arts.


"What can you do when face an opponent and the firearm can't function?" - well hitting someone with the butt of the rifle is valid as a gun does not need to have ammo or function for it to be correctly used as a blunt weapon, again if you don't even have a gun many in modern armies believe striking with punches and kicks is not as effective as restraining and throwing and allowing your fellow soldiers to shoot him, your gun not working is a possibility, every gun of your ten plus squad or whatever not working is highly, highly unlikely.

"Why rely purely on grappling when it is very limited in effectiveness." - well you see people disagree with your assertion that grappling is very limited in its effectiveness, lots of modern armies especially the more modern highly funded and highly trained and equipped armies believe it is vastly more effective to grapple than strike in these situations on the battlefield.

You have been given numerous reasons but you are ignoring them why grappling is considered superior for this circumstance. In ancient times it was all about a warrior and his individual courage and skill, one man overcoming the next through his strength and skill, this is not ancient warrior times, this is modern soldiers who are not looking for a fair fight, they want the most unfair fight stacked in their odds they can, this means it makes more sense to have your buddy shoot your attacker if your gun is not working. if you are fighting your opponent with kicks and strikes it will involve a lot of movement and make it extremely hard for your mate to take a shot at the enemy without risking hitting you, if you grapple your opponent to the ground and cant restrain him in place it is very easy for your mate to walk up and shoot your enemy in the head. They simply consider that more effective and efficient use of time and training.

The american marines I believe are now being taught some grappling based on gracie jiu jitsu, do they teach them armbars and chokes? nope, they said these are great for normal combat but ineffective for modern wars with armour, their conclusion was using the positions of grappling to defend yourself from injury and survive long enough for your mate to shoot your opponent.

cowzerp

DaBrow wrote: »

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..

Please dont, where will i get my entertainment from if you leave!!!

Martial arts suck for war, you'd be better off been trained to run or to hide effectively if you have no weapon.

yomchi

Not sure where this is going to be honest, the argument Da Brow is putting forward is probably more suited to the 16th century. The thread would be better suited in the military forum or some where.

Anyone who thinks this thread is productive drop me a PM if it needs to be unlocked, I haven't the time to search through the last 5 pages for sense.

arybvtcw0eolkf

BigDuffman wrote: »

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.

+1.

As for probably the most famous of modern military martial arts styles - Krav Maga, well I've trained K.M. with the Israeli Defence Forces and without exception each and everyone of them primarily trained in boxing, Judo and Muay Thai.

Reluctantly I'm going to open the thread again and take full responsiblity for the actions of your feckers so don't let me down.

Lads, give the OP some respect please. Sure he's posted some cringe worthy stuff but few of us haven't so just drop the vailed insults (Doug )

In my opinion, our military doesn't need any kind of unarmed combat training, zilch, nadda, zero!.

Why, because in a hostile situation we're always armed, and if for some reason I'm not armed then someone in my section will be armed, or the platoon will be armed, if not the company will be armed etc etc etc.

Indeed when we're forming up for an oversea's mission there's not one minute given over to unarmed combat training.

As there is if a soldier in the Irish Defence forces wishes to get involved in martial arts the D.F. have competitive Judo an boxing clubs open to serving members.

yomchi wrote: »

Not sure where this is going to be honest, the argument Da Brow is putting forward is probably more suited to the 16th century.

I 'tend to agree, but I'll take responsibilty for the actions of the guys. I'm trusting them not to let me down.

OP, don't leave.

DaBrow

DaBrow wrote: »

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.

To be honest I don't have any real opinion on what the defence forces should or should not be trained on. However accepting your view that they should be trained in a striking or hybrid martial arts could I just ask the following question, do you reckon black belt standard would be sufficient ? I did a small amount of kickboxing some years back (for 18 months or so) and I did some krav maga in recent years and so sparred with folks of varying ability from many different backgrounds. Many joe soaps off the street who never received any formal training would put up quite a fight to someone trained to black belt standard in most disciplines. Now there is I think a major jump from black belt to 1st Dan etc.

I don't in any way want to pee folk off but any blackbelt knows there limitations and also the more martial arts you do the more you realise how you never want to have to try and use it, of course before you start you reckon after 5 or 5 classes you'll be invincable.

DaBrow

Seamus Brief Hailstorm wrote: »

+1.

As for probably the most famous of modern military martial arts styles - Krav Maga, well I've trained K.M. with the Israeli Defence Forces and without exception each and everyone of them primarily trained in boxing, Judo and Muay Thai.

In my opinion, our military doesn't need any kind of unarmed combat training, zilch, nadda, zero!.

Why, because in a hostile situation we're always armed, and if for some reason I'm not armed then someone in my section will be armed, or the platoon will be armed, if not the company will be armed etc etc etc.

Indeed when we're forming up for an oversea's mission there's not one minute given over to unarmed combat training.

As there is if a soldier in the Irish Defence forces wishes to get involved in martial arts the D.F. have competitive Judo an boxing clubs open to serving members.

I can respect your opinion Seamus Brief Hailstorm, most hostile situations for military personnell will be armed and I do accept that.

However, I do feel that our Asian Counterparts in Korea/Japan/China easily outclass us on the topic of unarmed combat....

The fact they are lethal with/without a weapon shows that they are a serious force to provoke a fight against.

This thread is only suggest ways of improving what is already on offer; Judo has its benefits as does boxing but if we engaged with another soldier in a simple unarmed challenge....say from e.g. China

The level of techniques that opponent would have at their disposal could outmatch even the most hardened grappler/boxer.

I feel this is very important.... If other armed counterparts are taught striking-based or Hybrid-Based Arts that include Grappling, shouldn't we consider learning these as a means of preventing a time when they are needed?

I just recall the old saying "It's better to know how to fight and not needing to, rather than needing to fight and not know how."

DaBrow

DaBrow wrote: »

The level of techniques that opponent would have at their disposal could outmatch even the most hardened grappler/boxer.

I think you are underestimating the capabilites of a hardened boxer tbh.

DaBrow

RoverJames wrote: »

To be honest I don't have any real opinion on what the defence forces should or should not be trained on. However accepting your view that they should be trained in a striking or hybrid martial arts could I just ask the following question, do you reckon black belt standard would be sufficient ?

This is probably my final post on this thread, I've just been fedup with the amount of hecklers on it.

I'll answer your question; I think Black Belt 1st Dan is a good rank in a striking Based Art to fend off most opponents if ever engaged in a fight.

Karate e.g. Wado Ryu for example has Punches, Strikes, Kicks, Blocks and Takedowns against an opponent... It is a fairly Hybrid Traditional Karate Style because the founder was a Jiu Jitsu Student previously and incorporated techniques from it into Shotokan.

Hapkido for example is completely Hybrid... It has Punches, Strikes, Kicks, Blocks, Takedowns, Throws, Grappling and chokes - Probably the most complete Martial Art I've ever seen - It has alot of origins from Karate and other Korean Arts that mirror Jiu Jitsu, Judo and Aikido.

---

A Boxer can only punch, even though each punch has a powerful impact... A Muay Thai Boxer can use their feet and hands to equally devastating effect.
A fight between the two would show that the Muay Thai boxer has a stronger chance with their legs and hands, rather than the boxer with their hands alone.


Karate has its flaws which as a 1st Dan you can recognise, but I think either cross-training in another style to fill those gaps or practise a complete martial art would help strengthen the fighter.

Black Belt makes you fairly efficient to recognise most forms of Danger and be able to perform all the basic techniques to very good effect if ever finding yourself in such a position; but only the greater the Dan Rank, the more experienced and wiser the fighter will be... In theory.

I think the more you train, the better you perform... One fact for sure is that the Elite Units of the South Korean Army expect a recruit to have a 1st Dan before they even apply. Training Drills I've seen on Footage proves why they need it.