The difference was the Navy and the USMC (which is a department of the Navy, by the way), took the framework but not all the techniques. The Viet Nam era combatives was based on Karate, Judo & Boxing... Marine Recruits were trained in simple escapes from bear hugs, wrist grabs, throats grabs & joint-locks. They learned a hand full of joint-locks, throws, takedowns, punching, kick, in-fighting (knees and elbows) & strikes to a few simple vital area. Killing techniques were ultra simple and proven to work, the basic strategy was one sided... Close the gap with basic boxing (punches), (kicks were taught but, also taught not to be relied on and you only learned 4 front, back & side were standing kicks & a stomp kick used to kill a downed enemy), use a vital point strike to stun or injure the attacker, throw them to the ground or take them down & finish the enemy with a Stomp Kick to the Temple, Throat, Xyphoid Process, Ribs or if you want to injure them, knees and ankles.
I also learned Generation 1, Modern Army Combatives which is now publicly available as Gracie Combatives. I was awarded in the Army for Teaching my own Combatives System to my fellow soldiers. This was because I felt the ground grappling only system was one sided and not truly effective... A fun story about this highlights the issue. I was stationed in Korea and in Korea, Tae Kwon Do is the National Sport, there are more Dojangs on every other street corner then their are convenience stores. The Republic of Korea (ROK, South Korea) teaches three sports to their citizens and those same sports are common in the Military. Yudo (Judo just how the Koreans pronounce it), Tae Kwon Do and some sumo-like Korean art (basically sumo, I don't know if it was adopted after the Japanese invasion of Korea over centuries or after WW2 or if the Japanese stole it from the Koreans). Anyway, if you understand this, you understand Koreas are very well rounded in martial arts culturally... So I was witness to a Korean Soldier knocking out an American Soldier in a bar, in South Korea. How did this come about, a tall lanking loud mouth who thought he was unbeatable because he studied Brazillian Jui-jitsu (or so he claimed, I suspect it was just MAC). Challenged a KATUSA (Korean Soldiers attatched to the US Military) to fight, while they were drinking & the KATUSA knocked him out cold... with three kicks; the first to the stomach to stop a takedown attempt, then one to the knee to bring the US soldier down to ground and the last one to the head.
See MAC generation two started adding Muay Thai and other aspects to make the system more rounded out. Generation one focused on ground grappling. So when I got to working on my own combatives system for my Platoon, I was already looking at certain elements of Muay Thai & Karate to add to it. Something I was later teaching my Compnay as well. But, I took some inspiration from the older USMC combatives system I was taught as well. So you have to understand there are three different combatives systems we are talking about here.
Modern Army Combatives which was all groundfighting, Viet Nam era Combatives mixing Boxing, Karate & Judo and World War 2 Combatives based on Kung-fu, Boxing & Judo. So which is better? None of them is better because they were designed for different eras and show an evolution of thinking...
In World War 2, the idea of hand-to-hand combat was pretty much useless. Soldiers were using rifles like the M1 Garand which was 30-06, a high powered and long range effective weapon. Some special units like the paratroopers of World War 2, were issued M1 Carbine which were .30 caliber (7.62x33mm) round. There was little to stop these heavy and high powered rounds from penetrating the body. So vital point strikes as seen in World War II combatives was preferred as it meant that Soldiers in combat could learn simple, effective and straight forward means of disabling an opponent in a fast and dirty fashion... However, technology is the issue here.
In Viet Nam, US Soldiers were beginning to wear "Flak Vests" a form of body armor which stopped shrapnel from bombs and grenades but didn't really stop bullets. They were alleged to be able to stop a pistol round, however the issue of technology appears again. Wearing these vests limited the effectiveness of strikes and the WWII occupation of Japan spread the arts of Judo and Karate through the military. So the old World War II system was adapted and adopted methods from these systems. Striking still had a focus but, grappling took a greater focus because some of the Viet Cong were wearing US Military Flak vests, which wasn't effective against gun fire was limiting to unarmed combat and even armed combat with knives, e-tools & sticks. Native martial arts of Viet Nam required soldiers to have greater skill at unarmed combat and so striking and grappling took about even measure in the Combatives System.
Modern Army Combatives, again technology plays a role. We place a greater focus on grappling or more specifically ground grappling with the Generation I MAC. This is good on so many levels and bod on others...
1. Ground fighting was something the older systems lacked...
2. All these MMA jocks online are fucking idiots. The UFC has dick to do with combat or realistic conditions. So lets apply ground fighting to some simulated realistic conditions. Put 2 people in a room with friends on either side and armed with paint ball guns. They get to use whatever combat system they like and their friends cam shoot at them or each other... That's why ground fighting is good, the Army (and Marines for that matter) teach you drop prone and return fire. Why prone? Because standing targets are easier to shoot.
So now the Generation 2 of Modern Army Combatives has ignored the vital point strikes & is focused more on the basic punching and kicking, infighting and ground grappling of a blend of Gracie Jui-jitsu (MAC Gen 1) and Muay Thai with some elements of Karate. Ultimately, this is the which is better debate of Karate or Judo, & before that it was Boxing or Wrestling... Basically, it is the question of what is better striking or grappling?
Here is my answer...
The world changes, technology changes are lives & with it social needs and functions. The Japanese Samurai wore armor & the Chinese styles often wear less ridged armor having a great amount of metal then the Japanese. Many Chinese styles were not used for the military and some wear used by conscripts and village militia who had to furnish their own weapons & armor. All of these are constructs of the thinking, society, resources and technology available to those in that part of the world. There is not better or best, anything only what is best under those conditions... Honestly, knowing how to hit a vital area is just as important as knowing how to grappling on the ground. A palm heel strike to the chin will knock you out just as easily standing as it will from the mount, as does a rear naked choke from stand-up or the rear mount and, pulling guard lets me use you as a human shield just as, provides a prone position's cover against gun fire & keeps someone from taking the mount.
There is no better or best arts, just better people and the best way for them to train to develop themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgVesn_prTg
ReplyDelete