That makes sense to me. The fights I can think of that have been striking only were ones that lasted a few seconds or less with one punch ending it. Anything else usually has one person grabbing another at some point, even if no one's going for a gogoplata or anything, there's still some grappling there.
Sorry I keep missing your posts--I've been a little distracted on the forum with... nevermind! There are no works cited; they only mention the reports in the intro. I am tending to give them the benefit of the doubt based on their Army reps (they developed the program). Technically, that's not good enough, I know. The techniques in the book are mostly demonstrated out of full uniform, but then there are parts that focus on full gear with the purpose of weapon retention. They have thought about the problem of full gear, and address it. I'm not an expert, but I have learned things from this book that helped in my BJJ class; I've also incorporated some of the take downs. Very well organized book with crisp clear pictures showing different vantage points of the same position. I think it's very good, buy it.
Without the sources being cited, there's no way to evaluate what they are saying. I've heard first hand reports that would sort of refute those statements. But, I don't have the benefit of a bulk of research to look it. I wonder if the authors were in the same boat - generalizing based on a limited amount of written and reported info and making conclusions from that. It would be nice to see the sources and evaluate those sources. I'm sure the material is good (I've seen a bunch of it). I do know there are concerns among some soldiers about applying the bulk of the material in full gear (and the problem of a grappling based program while wearing a flak vest, weapons, and ruck). Not saying the program isn't good, just saying that some troops (10th MTN Div - Light Infantry) have found the need to supplement it to make it fight "real combat" a little better. Again, though, that's just a small amount of reference that pertains just to one group that we know and work with... I wouldn't generalize that to fit "all" troops.
Hey Thomas, you are an army vet. What kind of hand to hand combat did they teach in basic when you went through it? Did you find your martial art training helped? Just curious. Also weren't you airborne? I'm sorry, but jumping out of a perfectly good airplane just isn't my style!
In 1989-1993 I really didn't leanr much for unarmed combatives... we relied on small arms and bayonets mainly (as well as other weapons). If I were to go in again, I'd probably like to have a bit of formal training behind me. Luckily the planes I jumped out of weren't that "good"!!!!!! They were just about worn out and I think it was better to jump than chance a landing in those deathtraps!
Luckily the planes I jumped out of weren't that "good"!!!!!! They were just about worn out and I think it was better to jump than chance a landing in those deathtraps![/QUOTE]
Obviously I am not Thomas, but to give some perspective, I was getting out of the army just before he went in and we had very little training on hand to hand combat. While I was in, I got to work with the Special Forces training camp. From what I observed of their training, hand to hand combat training was almost exclusively striking.
The authors designed the program for the US Army--why doubt that they had direct access to reports. I think they were the ones who developed the questionairres. Still, it would be nice to see the reports.
I neither doubt nor know what they had access to. From some of the guys I have trained with (from 10th MTN Div) they liked the program in general... but found it a bit lacking in situations where you are wearing full gear. As a grappling-based program, they see a need to supplement it with more striking, more police-like defensive tactics, and better accounting for the "real life" situations dealing with multiple suspects, varying levels of force, and the realities of of wearing and fighting in the equipment necessary. The guys we work with have been working on a modified program of Combat Hapkido & Military Combatives to supplement it... not Army-wide but at least for most of the combat troops in the division. On our side, GM Pellegrini and Master Robert Gray have been helping with the technical side and even journeyed to Afghanistan to do some seminars and training with the troops to get a better feel for the situation where its being employed. It's not a mattter of the core arts being better or worse than one another, it's a matter of fitting what we can do in a nice safe dojang to the realities of the troop's situation. Chech out this article or this one Yes. It would be nice to know what they based their research on. I know the direction my instructors are taking with their program and why.
Started as a side topic to a thread that escalated into a thousand directions. I don't mind continuing it as it seems that others wanted to dig it up and discuss it. Feel free to join in.
I did Pellagrini's Combat Hapkido for about a year. We had a good instructor and I liked the sparring although it was to lite for my tastes. I didnt like all the armlocks they were pretty much a waste of time IMO but they were better than having to do Kata. In retrospect I wish I had taken the BJJ class which was held there on alternate days with a different instructor. You just cant beat full on sparring to really learn.
The book in question does touch on striking, but more muy thai related. They advise against using strking as your main focus becuase it doesn't work as well against a larger faster opponent as grappling, and according to them, all fights had elements of grappling, none had just striking. To bring this back to the subject... has a BJJ ever dormstormed a combat hapkido dojo?
No clue. For a while, Combat Hapkido was working closely with Carlson Gracie, Jr for our ground survival program (as well as others). Our own school has had some people from the locla NHB school in to train with us, to do some mini-clinics with us, and to roll a bit. Good fun and good learning.
