Drunken Dragon
6 February 2003, 04:38
This is my first post on SocNet, and I just thought I would fish for opinions regarding hand-to-hand combat training. I would like to know how the SpecOps community feels about all this hype about different fighting styles/systems. I'll start with my view.
To me, hand-to-hand is very simple. An understanding of human anatomy, a well-conditioned body, accurate strikes and holds, fluid mobility, and a strong simplified philosophy add up to victory. I don't understand why so much emphasis is placed on a certain style or "system" of fighting when combat is really such a simple thing. Well, except for the aspect of financial profit and ego gratification. I understand those. But unless it's for sport, fighting is serious business. I certainly don't need to tell you SpecOps guys that. I'm tired of hearing, "My system will crush any opponent," and similar crap. And I'm so weary of the strike vs. grapple debate which started in the early days of the UFC.
I come from a perspective of practicality and survival. Sport fighting is all well and good, but fighting is really about neutralizing a threat. An instructor telling a student to use a Black Tiger style strike to crack and pull a rib isn't helping that student a bit if the opponent is well-muscled in that area. It may be much more efficient to break the knee with a good kick (if the opportunity were there).
I studied Shaolin kung fu for a number of years, so I understand the importance of passing on tradition, but it was also stressed that one shouldn't rely on any one specific style or a limited set of techniques. The problem I see with some of these modern "super-systems" is limitation. They claim that the techniques they teach is all that will be needed in a physical confrontation. That is simply laughable.
So what do you guys think? Is what you are being taught in hand-to-hand helpful when it comes to crunch time?
As an aside, I'm curious to learn what Army Special Forces is being taught in the way of hand-to-hand. Can anyone help me out here?
To me, hand-to-hand is very simple. An understanding of human anatomy, a well-conditioned body, accurate strikes and holds, fluid mobility, and a strong simplified philosophy add up to victory. I don't understand why so much emphasis is placed on a certain style or "system" of fighting when combat is really such a simple thing. Well, except for the aspect of financial profit and ego gratification. I understand those. But unless it's for sport, fighting is serious business. I certainly don't need to tell you SpecOps guys that. I'm tired of hearing, "My system will crush any opponent," and similar crap. And I'm so weary of the strike vs. grapple debate which started in the early days of the UFC.
I come from a perspective of practicality and survival. Sport fighting is all well and good, but fighting is really about neutralizing a threat. An instructor telling a student to use a Black Tiger style strike to crack and pull a rib isn't helping that student a bit if the opponent is well-muscled in that area. It may be much more efficient to break the knee with a good kick (if the opportunity were there).
I studied Shaolin kung fu for a number of years, so I understand the importance of passing on tradition, but it was also stressed that one shouldn't rely on any one specific style or a limited set of techniques. The problem I see with some of these modern "super-systems" is limitation. They claim that the techniques they teach is all that will be needed in a physical confrontation. That is simply laughable.
So what do you guys think? Is what you are being taught in hand-to-hand helpful when it comes to crunch time?
As an aside, I'm curious to learn what Army Special Forces is being taught in the way of hand-to-hand. Can anyone help me out here?