Basic principles

[David Jamieson]

Hey all, I thought it would be good to post this.

These are basic principles of combat that are inherent to most, if not all fighting systems.

These are the guiding principles for hand to hand combat training as prescribed by the armed forces of the US. I can see little difference between these principles and the principles of fighting that are found in what could be considered "ancient" fighting systems.

comments?

BASIC PRINCIPLES
Underlying all combatives techniques are principles the hand-to-hand fighter must apply to successfully defeat an opponent. The natural progression of techniques, as presented in this manual, will instill these principles into the soldier.

a. Mental Calm. During a fight a soldier must keep his ability to think. He must not allow fear or anger to control his actions.

b. Situational Awareness. Things are often going on around the fighters that could have a direct impact on the outcome of the fight such as opportunity weapons or other personnel joining the fight.

c. Suppleness. A soldier cannot always count on being bigger and stronger than the enemy. He should, therefore, never try to oppose the enemy in a direct test of strength. Supple misdirection of the enemy's strength allows superior technique and fight strategy to overcome superior strength.

d. Base. Base refers to the posture that allows a soldier to gain leverage from the ground. Generally, a soldier must keep his center of gravity low and his base wide-much like a pyramid.

e. Dominant Body Position. Position refers to the location of the fighter's body in relation to his opponent's. A vital principle when fighting is to gain control of the enemy by controlling this relationship. Before any killing or disabling technique can be applied, the soldier must first gain and maintain one of the dominant body positions.

f. Distance. Each technique has a window of effectiveness based upon the amount of space between the two combatants. The fighter must control the distance between himself and the enemy in order to control the fight.

g. Physical Balance. Balance refers to the ability to maintain equilibrium and to remain in a stable upright position.

h. Leverage. A fighter uses the parts of his body to create a natural mechanical advantage over the parts of the enemy's body. By using leverage, a fighter can have a greater effect on a much larger enemy.

peace

[David Jamieson]

As well, these key points are laid out in the same codified methods as above.

I find these very interesting as the are re-iterations of the teachings of the old brought into the real world of combat in modern times.

further comments?

Chokes. Chokes are the best way to end a fight. They are the most effective way to incapacitate an enemy and, with supervision, are also safe enough to apply in training exactly as on the battlefield.

Joint Locks. In order to incapacitate an enemy, attacks should be directed against large joints such as the elbow, shoulder, or knee. Attacks on most of these joints are very painful long before causing any injury, which allows full-force training to be conducted without significant risk of injury. The exceptions are wrist attacks and twisting knee attacks. The wrist is very easily damaged, and twisting the knee does not become painful until it is too late. Therefore, these attacks should be taught with great care and should not be allowed in sparring or competitions.

Striking. Striking is an inefficient way to incapacitate an enemy. Strikes are, however, an important part of an overall fight strategy and can be very effective in manipulating the opponent into unfavorable positions. Striking can be practiced with various types of protective padding such as boxing gloves. Defense can be practiced using reduced force blows. Training should be continuously focused on the realities of fighting.

peace

[scotty1]

Cheers Kung Lek. Thats like a nioce overview of the important things in fighting.

"Striking is an inefficient way to incapacitate an enemy"

Not sure I agree with that completely, but I can see what the writer is getting at.

[Mutant]

Cool info kung Lek, thanks for posting it.

It is interesting to see the similarities between modern fighting systems and ancient ones, which is great for reminding folks of the original intent and purpose of 'classical' martial arts. It is also interesting to see how some styles have evolved away from their original intent. There are, after all, only so many ways that humans can effectively defend themselves.

I also happen to think that striking is more important and effective than what is outlined, but realize the context & intent of the article. Properly trained, our limbs can be effective ballistically.

[red5angel]

I think I would agree with most of it except the part about chokes being the most efficeint way of ending a fight. all the fights I have been in have ended with strikes, they are quick, if practiced can be delivered cleanly and efficiently. Chokes can as well be delivered fairly cleanly if practiced. I would agree with this presumption if you were looking to end a fight safely, I however am not one to shy away from striking for the sake of safety, if I am attacked I will attack, if I hurt him too badly in the process, it was his mistake for attacking me, I however am probably capably of getting the hell out before being held accountable.

[Silumkid]

"Striking is an inefficient way to incapacitate an enemy"

Hmph. Balderdash, I say!

Seriously, I think one should never discard or underestimate a technique of any sort. I've seen plenty of people get their clocks cleaned from striking, including a 176 pound Ukranian stopping a 320 pound American in "caged combat". And the whole fight was that one punch.

To discard or underestimate is to leave yourself open.

[Black Jack]

Is that from the new/re-vamped army combat manuel or as I like to call it the new commerical BJJ manuel:rolleyes:

The first part on basic principles is excellent and comes from the first manuel but I don't agree with a lot of the second format.

1. I don't believe in a battlefield situation, choking is the best way to end a fight, I think that is actually very dangerous and pretty absurd to say the least.

For military sentry removal and some other close quater aspects then yes it is a excellent tool but for a mass situation, hell no.

For the street, strangulations, chokes and neck manipulations are great tools but should be applied in the same context, use them when the enviroment allows, don't try to force them onto the enviroment as the military application on the new manuel seems to say.

2. I am of the belief that joint locks are only good after you have hammered someone a bit so they can really be applied or as on a ground situation you have put yourself in a superior position to execute a quick technique. No one is just going to stand or lay stock still, like a good uke and let you crack their elbow or put them in a figure four arm lock, again IMHO let the enviroment dictate, complaince holds in a peackeeping or civilian atmosphere have their place, but as you notice most situations in where that happens from a LEO standpoint are done with backup.

3. I like close quarter striking coupled with serious aggression, besides weapons, I think its the most effective means of ending a fight out their, it keeps you mobile, be this from a standup situation or even from a quick double leg to a ground and pound.

Maybe because I like my personal range to be a bit upclose.

[Suntzu]

to me, that just goes to show that fighting is fighting whether you use 'monkey grabs the fruit' :confused: :rolleyes: or a right cross it's all the same just a different name but with the same desire effect… hopefully…

[Mutant]

silumkid and red5angle; I agree the striking is downplayed in that article and it is much more effective in many situations.

But remember that it was written for combat soldiers in the field, who may be facing enemies who might be wearing modern combat armor, helmets with big chin straps, kevlar, etc, and who probably would have weapons close at hand and be in terrain that makes it hard to launch good strikes.....so engaging and going in for a choke out or joint break makes lots of sense in that context....as long as it was done quickly....Althought i think kicks to the knee, knees, elbows, strikes to any exposed vitals, etc would still be part of the game plan.....I would think that too much wrestling in a battlefield would get you shot....but then again, just ending the engagement as quickly as possible and getting out of harms asap is what is paramount.

I won several fights when I was younger by getting a headlock and then choke, i think they work great in streetfights. But I agree that strikes can play a much bigger role than what was outlined.

[red5angel]

on a battlefield situation, kiling your opponent in anyway possible is the most efficient way. I was taught that for a sentry, knife between the ribs will do the job the best, or across the vocal cords.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

black jack just said everything i was gonna say, but i would have said it better.

[David Jamieson]

The manual is current, it dates from 1992 and is in use for army infantry training today.

The manual covers striking, grappling, impromptu weapons, single attacks, group tactics and a whole slew of useful stuff.

Personally, I think it is a pretty good manual that for the most part covers all ranges of close combat fighting in a real setting (the field of war).

I think that striking is seen as inefficient in the views of the authors and military because it is not known how much deflection can occur, how much striking force you have developed and how much striking force your opponent can withstand.

However, big, small, medium sized fighters will go down and stop when the blood or the breath is stopped. THis is more easily achieved by choking that by striking.

Many of your buck new recruits have little time to develop this stuff and the format it is delivered is pretty sound instruction.

I myself am a traditional style martial artist and I have the benefit of time to practice many terrific techniques. The average soldier has little time and must develop practical and immediately usable techniques and these techniques must be guided by sound principle.

I know that a strike can be the winning touch, I also know that in order to be able to hit as hard as the lennox lewis's and mike tysons of the world takes more training time than yer average soldier has.

I personally have hit guys with considerable force only to have them stand there shaken a bit perhaps but still able to continue. A well targeted strike will bring different results of course, but in a live fight, these are hard to come by.

However, everytime I have closed and tossed, dumped or choked it seems to have worked. Just my personal experience.

Of course, I would rather fight standing up, but will take the opponent down and strike from there if we are equal in striking ability. This I found especially true with some of my old classmates that had developed some skill in their ability to apply technique. THose that had striking skill I found it more useful to close and dump them. Those that had little skill it was just as useful to strike against them and their limited ability.

It's funny in retrospect that I now view fighting someone with skill means I have to close the gap and prevent them from being able to utilize their strikes.

I used to approach everyone with the stand up approach. But in the past few years I have seen benefit in taking someone out quickly with out striking them but rather putting them down and finishing.

peace

[red5angel]

"However, big, small, medium sized fighters will go down and stop when the blood or the breath is stopped. THis is more easily achieved by choking that by striking. "

I consider this line of reasoning incorrect. the chances of pulling off either are equal, if you are small your chances of getting a good strike in are as likely as putting a good solid choke hold on. Its not what it is but what you train. I know from personal experience that military hand to hand training sucks. Even at the higher levels. Most spec ops types tend to gravitate towards extensive HtH training of thier own, or joining schools of combat arts. While military ideals may be sound the practice of those rarely are.
The military doesnt spend a whole lot of time training you to fight hand to hand, but they do spend a lot of time training you to shoot. Why? Because this is efficient and effective and works better for moral. If you have to kil a man bare handed, it is a much harder thing to do and to deal with then pulling the trigger.
Again, most HtH techniuqes are obselete in todays military, we use bullets knives and bombs to kill, if you have missed with those then you are probably in the process of dying anyway.

[Repulsive Monkey]

I would definitely have to disagree with Chokes being the best way to end a fight, thats just rubbish and dangerously unfeasable. And striking being inefficient well it maybe with their methods but as a generalisation I would have to say quite plainly there are incorrect.

[Black Jack]

GDA:D

Average grunt soliders need to learn in a fairly short amount of time how to take out their fellow man, that goes for firearms, h2h, knife, what have you, in war-time situations history has shown that more serious h2h methods are beefed up in the training.

I am also all for learning chokes and grappling methods, just put them in their proper prespective, I love chokes, but a solider going to the ground on purpose on lets say a rubble strewn street corner in Bosina while their squad is being swarmed over by terrorists is a bit much for me to take.:rolleyes:

Now lets say that solider is rushed and taken to the ground as he is trying to bring his m-16 to bear, well then some ground fighting skills would be very helpfull, again let the enviroment dictate.

RedAngel5,

I know a few sentry removal methods with the knife, rope and h2h, most western military, one a Gurka method.

The vocal cord method I was taught was not across the vocal cords but by inserting the blade into the side of the neck and sawing outwards.

For academic purposes only:D

I practice military WWII close combat techniques, it is actually a core of what I do, it was a different time though then from what is taught now.

[David Jamieson]

red5-

emphasis in today's military be it whatever country is going to focus on shooting abilty.

Many military guys go outside of standard h2h training because it is "basic" and they simply wish to learn more. Here is where the "time" benefit comes in.

In fact, it is not uncommon to find martial arts training schools operating close to or within a base. Or catering specifically to soldiers.

The point I am trying to make is that it is in the military where you will find the "what works" philosophy at play in tactical training.

why hit when you can stab, why stab when you can shoot, why shoot when you can airstrike and so on.

In martial arts, countering tactics are created for all attacking tactics in a style. As they should be. Styles of Martial arts range from large systems with a whole lot of information that will enhance your ability to fight, but in themselves have no fighting application.

As an example, Chi Kung will greatly increase your ability to do combat but in itself is not combative. Stretching, and resistance training will increase your strength which in turn gives you an added "oomph" to your arsenal of weapons, but strength training has little martial applicability.

The meat and potatoes of Martial Arts is form and application of form. The other associated exercises increase ones ability to use the tactics found in form.

Many novices are introduced to martial arts by conditioning, stretching, strength development and so on. Or "setting the stage" for higher learning.
Some schools maintain that the hard work of augmentation will make the path to understanding form and application more smooth for the student. IMHO this is correct.

As for fighting itself, you must be able to adapt to your opponent. You cannot underestimate your advisary and you will be wise to understand your opponents applications so that you may counter them. THe more variety in your system, the more equipment you have. If you only "box" then you will not understand what is happening when you get dumped. If you only wrestle, you will not understand what it is to be hit full force across the bridge of your nose.

Kung Fu is a personal achievement in each of us. Hopefully we will each attain it at some point in our lives and in doing so enrich our lives with it as well as the lives of those around us.

But when it comes to actual combat on the street, in your gym or kwoon or dojo, then you must prepare for whatever is coming. If this is in your style, then it is in there and you will get to it eventually as you are built up in your training. If it is not there, then you will need to continue training in all ranges to find what you are capable of in all ranges.

sticking to one range in my opinion is incorrect and outmoded.
all must be explored either tactically from an attack or from a defend position or both.

This of course is related only to direct combat. There are many who would practice martial arts purely for the health benefits and subsequently the ability to defend themselves is a side effect of the training. THere is nothing wrong with this either. But facts are facts. No need to reinvent the wheel, but there is a definite need to understand the whys, hows and where-to-fors of that wheel.

peace

[red5angel]

BJ - I have learned a few official and a few more unofficial ways, all o fthem lethal. A sentry who is not permanently out of action is still a danger.

Kung Lek - Ultimately I agree, all ranges of combat must be studied if one seeks mastery of the combatitive arts. Now I just need to convince my instructor this includes several hundred meters from a low flying attack chopper...... :)

[Silumkid]

Mutant,

Good points. I would like to add, though, that while that equipment may indeed be a staple of today's military, helmets and vests do little to nothing in the stoppage of blunt force. I've talked to and heard stories from cops who have been stabbed right through a vest or been kicked/punched in the ribs. "Old time" NFL players used to open hand slap their opponents' helmets to "rock their world".

Basically, though, it seems we are all on the right track. Environment and opportunity will and should dictate what tactics are employed. Just for thought though, here's something we were told when I was "in service": If you find yourself in hostile territory absolutely weaponless, you should have paid more attention in training.

Adapt and overcome! :cool:

[scotty1]

Very interesting thread. :)

[Mutant]

Interesting stuff guys.

I would like to point out that the H2H material did not advocate taking the fight to the ground, nor did it equate applying the choke with groundfighting (at least when i skimmed through it again, correct me if i'm wrong).

In fact, the tactical fundamentals outlined included distance, superior body position, balance & base....all of which entail much more than groundfighting, although they certainly would apply there as well. You could argue that since superior position on the battlefield is certainly not on the ground wrestling. If you can close on an opponent and gain advantagous body position, then you might effectively apply a standing choke, which in conjunction to using leverage to collapse the structure, is a good and fairly quick fight ending technique.

All of the techniques in the addendum can be applied from standing, without going to the ground....i would think that going to the ground would be a last resort in a battlefield, but if it happened, the techniques can be applied there in order to take control and get back up and out of there.