Marine Martial Arts....why not?

V

VaughnT

New member
I caught a few minutes of a show the other day (the making of a marine) in which they showed recruits going through Parris Island.

One interesting part was where they were trained in the Marine Corp Martial Art style, which they said was a collection of moves from dozens of "traditional" styles.

This got me to wondering why we don't simply use the fighting techiques developed by our military instead of what some might consider the more esoteric stuff like Kung Fu. I mean to say, the MMA was developed to be taught fast to people with little or know previous experience, and to end a fight as quickly as possible.

Admittedly, I don't know anything more about it than what I saw on that program, but the principle is sound. All of our fighting forces have developed systems of hand combat that seem, to my untrained eye, very good and very simple to learn. What's wrong with studying SEAL H2H or Green Beret Empty Hand or Marine Corp Martial.... ? Is it just that there aren't any schools around to teach it like there are for the oriental arts? Are the military styles less than they seem?

I'm curious.
 
Finger thinkin.....

Some schools availabe.
Very difficult to sort out the real deal ones unless you know.

Probably tough to make a buck doin it.
Hard to train realistically, expensive protective gear or very high injury rate. Liability insurance probably pricey.

Hard to make money with it from spectators. Good confrontation should be over in the first move. (Musashi)

Some really nasty service schools geared toward very small groups of students. Far more intense than what recruits get.

Civillian counterparts quite doable if the students can afford it.

Sam
 
Any kind of "hand-to-hand" combat training for regulary military forces is for morale value only at best.

Skorzeny
 
hand/baton

they kept me at the mp school ft gordon in 58/59 3 or4 months
then transfered to deutschland as mp at 7th corp hq;; i promise you what we taught and learned worked in the street taking down a belligerant.... out of uniform it worked well in the street
no need of baton... it wasnt for morale as far as i saw it ..it was real
 
I think I caught a part of that program and the female instructor said they are incorporating Muay Thai, submission fighting, etc. as part of the curriculum now. I heard one of them talking about thai kicks, but then on the demo move that the recruits were doing was a basic foot sweep, then double stomp to head of downed opponent.

Looked like the same ol' old school to me, but what do I know about HTH in war? I know that in MMA I'd tend to go for mount and make faceburgers or go for a sub, but in war that same move might get me shot in the back from the enemy's buds from 200 yards away. Stable base = easy target?

Suffice to say I'd rather learn HTH techniques from those who actively compete in MMA than those who claim to have taught for military. Even then, who is to say that someone with mondo skills or experience is a good teacher?

Others like Kung-Fu because of appearance? Philosophy? Social acceptance? Leaning another culture? Tradition (dad took it)?Who knows. Even some decent KF guys that compete in MMA (crosstrained of course). Some traditional Karate guys are wreckers as we have seen. Soccermoms might not like the look of some MMA instructors or students and not let their kids go. Billion reasons why traditional MA are here to stay, they will just integrate MMA into the weak point of their system and probably emphasize common techniques.
 
Military Hand to Hand Training My Thoughts on the Matter.

In todays battlefields soldiers are not expected to use Hand to Hand combat. So it's considered an afterthought. Thus all your hand to hand in the military is pretty much rendered into a confidence building exercise, with no one getting hurt.

The Marine Corps Martials Arts programs has just basically been desighed as a way to appeal to todays recruits who took Karate, Kempo, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, etc. as kids or wanted too. And, give them a confidance boost.

The Army does this a little differently by jumping on the BJJ Bandwagon since it's the new popular thing. If you look at the Armys new hand to hand combat manuals it is now a Watered down version of Brazillian Ju Jitsu. The Army also jumped on the Tae Kwon Do, band wagon in the past too (if this is any indicator of a future behavior to come)

If you look at both services they've gotten ridden of Boxing completely (One, of the easiest, and most practical self defense systems to learn )due to people getting killed or getting hurt.

The training these recruits receive today is not to desighned to make them into unstoppable fighters or killers. It's just to give them the confidence, to make them more aggressive on the battlefield, and lessen the the chance that if they're caught in a H2H situatioun they'll try something, and not freeze up.

To truly condition someone to be a fighter it takes consistant training, time, and money. As well as the desire of the recruit to train. These are things that all branches of the Military do not have a surplus of.

That is why in todays military there is no Hand to Hand training for virtually any recruit after basic training except for SF,and Ranger types etc. Even then it's just a cursory grab bag to train from. I.E. "Here it is guy's take what you like"

The reason I know this is most of the guys who've been in these units, or have been in the military. Have told me what actually goes on today, when I train with them. Thier experiances are pretty much mimmic mine when it comes to this subject.

Enough said for now, but this my humble honest opinion.
 
That is why in todays military there is no Hand to Hand training for virtually any recruit after basic training except for SF,and Ranger types etc. Even then it's just a cursory grab bag to train from. I.E. "Here it is guy's take what you like"
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I beg to differ.

My son is a Marine stationed in Hawaii. He says that they go through MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program) training on a regular basis.

As for being just for morale purposes, while he was home on leave, my son showed me rather painfully how to trap, takedown, and kill an opponent who is trying to disarm you.
 
guncoach:
i promise you what we taught and learned worked in the street taking down a belligerant.... out of uniform it worked well in the street
no need of baton... it wasnt for morale as far as i saw it ..it was real
Click to expand...
Trusting that you are telling the truth, please read your own writing - "out of uniform it worked well in the street" (emphases mine) and contrast it with what I wrote: "Any kind of "hand-to-hand" combat training for regulary military forces is for morale value only at best." See anything there?

Powderman:
As for being just for morale purposes, while he was home on leave, my son showed me rather painfully how to trap, takedown, and kill an opponent who is trying to disarm you. (emphasis mine)
Click to expand...
And because your son showed you so painfully he must be able to do it to the crew of the next T-72 that rolls through Kuwait, right?

BTW, I know lots of cool, flashy Aikido locks and throws that work amazingly well during demonstrations to impress my friends and family. It doesn't mean I'm going to Kote Gaeshi my way out of a firefight let alone an artillery duel.

Skorzeny
 
Of course not!

Only a fool would bring empty hand techniques to a knife fight, let alone a gunfight. The only sane and sensible thing to do is to engage at the maximum distance possible. Seeing as how my son is in Artillery, that's quite a long range--of course, not taking into account such unfair tactics as counterbattery fire, triangulation, recon aircraft, or chemical or nuclear attack.

But, if you are engaged or employed in a profession that might bring you into close quarters with someone who has the intent of causing you extreme pain and discomfort, it helps to have an edge. No, empty hand techniques seldom play out as well as they are demonstrated. I know from first hand experience that any physical altercation can (and most likely will) turn into a ground fight. From what I've seen so far, the Marines spend a good amount of time training for just that--close in, dirty, savage ground fighting, with no quarter asked or given. Like I said, it's just an edge that might make the difference.

I still take comfort in that takedown, though. Why? Because he's 5'11" and 170, and I'm 6'2" and 305--with a 52 inch chest and a 42 inch waist. (Got to lose weight!!) I was NOT being gentle with him when I tried to take the rifle away, either.

Still, I agree with you.
 
madgrad, last time I checked, the Corps still does boxing in Recruit Training. This does not continue in the Fleet, but impromptu boxing matches are arranged occasionally as a morale booster. The old LINE training was a Fleet requirement much like the new MCMAP. I've heard plenty of folks knocking LINE and MCMAP on internet boards, and I suspect that they have no experience with either. I seriously doubt that any of these "internet tough guys" would volunteer to be on the receiving end of either technique.
 
Frankly, I'd rather that the military spent more time for rifle, pistol and bayonet (used as a knife) training than H2H training.

Having said that, I don't necessarily have problems with the military doing H2H training - I merely object and disagree when some people elevate it to mystical levels of super fighting godhood (TM). This is laughable since even trained martial artists who spend countless hours training often cannot "pull off" techniques in "street" encounters. Somehow when you slap a few of these technques together and train raw recruits (barely beyond teenage years) for limited duration, it gets billed as a super fighting system because, golly, it is given by the Corps!

I say again, H2H training is more appropriate for police officers, who may have to restrain suspects, and for civilians who may be unarmed or underarmed because of legal restrictions.

For the vast majority of military officers (aside from those with special civilian-like roles like the MPs or those who may have close quarters contact with enemy like special forces or downed pilots), it is for morale value only - it serves no or little purpose.

Skorzeny
 
Somehow when you slap a few of these technques together and train raw recruits (barely beyond teenage years) for limited duration, it gets billed as a super fighting system because, golly, it is given by the Corps!
Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't bother to read my earlier post. MCMAP and LINE training are not exclusive to Recruit Training. It continues in the Fleet.

The MCMAP program also includes knife fighting, both offensive and defensive. LINE does not. I don't recall anyone billing it as a "super figting system", because it simply is not. I do seem to recall seeing you step in and start trashing it the last few times it has been mentioned. What it is, is a very simple, effective program that can be mastered quickly and used with great success. As I said earlier, I don't know of many folks who would want to be on the receiving end.
 
I do seem to recall seeing you step in and start trashing it the last few times it has been mentioned.
Click to expand...
I don't recall what I wrote about it - can you provide some details?

I trash pretty much every "martial art" including every system I studied. They are often blown up to be what they are not, LINE included. Heck, I love practicing Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. That doesn't mean I think that the Rangers should be training in it as a part of military training curriculum, other than for "morale value" or this "warrior spirit."
What it is, is a very simple, effective program that can be mastered quickly and used with great success.
Click to expand...
"Effective" for what? "Used with great success" in what situations or context?
As I said earlier, I don't know of many folks who would want to be on the receiving end.
Click to expand...
But then again, would anyone like to be on the receiving end of any kind of pain (except masochists)? I mean, I don't like to be "on the receiving end" of a .22LR round either, but few argue that this is a "manstopper."

I don't like to me on the receiving end of Wing Chun trapping techniques either, but even many Wing Chun technicians say that many such techniques have limited effectiveness in "street fights" whatever those may be.

Skorzeny
 
The poster who responded with the fact that any unnarmed combat for todays armed forces is primarily for morale (and fitness) reasons is right on the money.

The fact that so many people today believe the MMA phenomenon and Brazillian Jiu-jitsu to be the pinnacle of MA development thus explains why the armed forces are capitalising on this enthusiasm and integrating it.

Just don't get confused. MMA is about as far from the reality of armed combat a soldier will ever experience. Groundfighting and going for juji gatame becomes laughable when soldiers are armed with knives and entrenching tools at worst, sidearms and rifles at best. It's a sport, and it's hardly full of the best ways to end a fight quickly because of the very fact that it is a sport.

Personally, I think there was nothing wrong with the old OSS Fairbairn and Sykes training. It didn't pretend to be anything it wasn't.
 
"Effective" for what? "Used with great success" in what situations or context?
Click to expand...

Effective on the battlefield when loaded down with equipment that restricts your movement. Effective in typical self defense situations against the typical attacker on the street. The typical attacker being the loud drunk at the local pub, the shifty eyed mugger, or the occasional fellow serviceman who has taken a wrong turn. Nobody is suggesting that Marines leave boot camp ready to take on Jackie Chan. What I am suggesting is that the training is meeting the requirements laid out by the Marine Corps. Is it a morale booster? Maybe for some. I never particularly enjoyed it. Is it good for physical fitness? It certainly can't hurt, but Marines as a group tend to be in pretty good shape anyway. Is it effective in it's intended role? Absolutely.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. It's obvious that you know better, and I am just an uninformed nitwit.:rolleyes:
 
Interesting thread.

The MCMA was conceived as more akin to a traditional martial art rather than close combat. It has colored T-shirts awarded rather than belts. To progress, the marine must complete X hours in certain specified areas. Must have attained certain rank before being allowed to attain a certain color T-shirt, etc. Combatives is not what is was designed for.

The current version of the US Army Combatives focuses entirely on BJJ. It is the worst FM the Army has fielded in years. The demonstrators aren't even wearing combat boots in the pics. They are wearing grappling shoes! No webgear, no combat boots, just BDUs and grappling/wrestling footwear. Yeah, OK.

Combatives training in the Army has never been high priority. The units who train in Combatives do so, because their Commander or NCOs realize the validity of unarmed skills, not because the Army has a clue. I'm not certain who had the greatest influence on the current Army manual, but I'd be willing to guess it was the Ranger Bats, particularly the one based out of Fort Lewis, WA. I know that they it was two Ranger NCOs who were committed martial artists who spearheaded the last revamp of FM 21-150 and it was pretty well done, with a definite FMA influence. But this new one has gone off the deep end.

So anyway, the Ranger Bats and the SF Teams that are doing high-speed unarmed skills development are doing it in spite of the Army doctrine, not because of it. A great example of this is that when John Holschen [now of Insights Training Center] was assigned to 1st SFGroup at Ft. Lewis, he was put in charge of developing a simple, easy to learn, easy to retain combatives program for 1st group. He did. They had a simple, rock solid program for a good little while. He left, Commanders changed, priorities shifted, program goes bye-bye.

When I was stationed at 25th ID(Light), some companies did combatives on a weekly basis, some NEVER trained combatives.
 
fix:
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. It's obvious that you know better, and I am just an uninformed nitwit.
Click to expand...
I will defer to YOUR superior knowledge of the centrality of unarmed combat in today's battlefield if you would kindly point out some examples of the following:
Effective on the battlefield when loaded down with equipment that restricts your movement.
Click to expand...
Fair?

Skorzeny
 
I'm not sure how many of you posting are active duty Marines. I am, and I will try to add some facts to this discussion. Feel free to argue with opinions, but these ARE the facts.
First, let me tell you what the Commandant had in mind when he conceived MCMAP. As a Vietnam vet he knew that the Vietnamese almost never assaulted ROK Marine positions. The reason is that the ROK Marines were, justifiably, feared for their hand to hand abilities. He envisions the same thing for the future of the Corps. So, yes in that sense it is psyops or a morale booster or whatever phrase you want to use. It could get inside the head of the enemy just like the white sleeves and black boots in Beirut, or the name Devil Dog in WWI. Unlike other HTH styles or those of other services, MCMAP has the full backing and funding from the highest authority in the Corps. Hell, there is even a new school house dedicated to training the trainers.
Second, all who say modern war is fought with guns and missiles are technically correct. However, how often are we found in police actions instead of war. The correct term is Military operations other than war (MOOTW), but the result is the same. We find ourselves in situations where it is not politically feasible to shoot everything in sight. We all have had to stand guard duties and we have to be trained to deal with aggressive behavior without our rifles. Every Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) trains for things like riot control and use of less lethal force. Some people may not like the global police force we have become, but it is reality. It is how we fight, so it is how we must train.
Third, MCMAP is an ongoing process. Recently orders have been distributed that state Marines are required to do 5 hours of PT every week. Two of those hours must be dedicated to MCMAP and combat conditioning. There is a belt progression that will carry a Marine through their career. Starting with the basically qualified recruit who wears a tan riggers belt and going up through the black belt instructor trainers.
Do I think MCMAP is the ultimate art? No, of course not, there is no such thing. It, and the combat conditioning that goes along with it, is designed to teach Marines to operate effectively in close combat when they are dog tired and physically exhausted. It is good at that.
I hope I shed some light on the subject. For further info you can check the Marine Corps' Martial Arts Center of Excellence at https://www.tbs.usmc.mil/Pages/Martial_Arts/Default.htm
 
"it is for morale value only - it serves no or little purpose."

I wouldn't call boosting morale serving little or no purpose. More boxing/Muay Thai/Submission should be encouraged over that padded jousting with football helmets crap. I think a "ToughMan" type competition can tell you alot about a guys character when faced with a "fight or flight" adrenal response situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top