View Full Version : Army Rangers... Gracie Fans!?!?!?!

07-08-2000, 05:29 AM
About last nights martial arts program. I was able to catch the end(Beginning? It was late. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) and observe BJJ implemented into Army training.

I have to tell you, I LOVED the Army's implementation of Gracie Ju Jitsu into the Ranger training but I was getting a bad vibe from it. They just seemed kind of "spoon-fed." Dont get me wrong, the moves looked great, the training looked all pro. My problem is this, my philosophy about it is to study as much as you can and use WHATEVER works. The more familiar you are with different styles, the better off you will be. Also, you use whatever kills the fastest. In other words, the training looked WAY to specialized. I am also not sure how Gracie Ju Jitsi would translate into the modern battlefield.

Ok, I was in the Navy folks. I will state up front, I WAS NOT A SEAL! I worked on Fighter/Attack aircraft. However, I did come into contact with a lot of Seals and even partied with a few down in Puerto Rico. Seeing as I have an insatiable appetite towards all things martial, we had some interesting talks.

The HtH training in BUDS(Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training.) is not quite what you would imagine it to be. A LOT of improvised weaponry and much emphasis on "Deadly techniques" (Funny how no one scoffs at them when they say that... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) and traditional weaponry. It turns out that every SEAL I talked to had chosen to practice a martial art OUTSIDE of thier primary training. Yes, a lot of it was types of Ju Jitsu. Muay Thai also had a big following and surprisingly, one or two of them took Aikido. Hmmm, I guess they would rather MISDIRECT and toss an oponnent then jump on top of an enemy during a pitched battle.

Again, this is NOT a flame against BJJ, I just do not think it is a good idea for the Rangers to focus EXCLUSIVELY on BJJ, but hey... the military went to hell after I left anyway. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I dont know, something about it just struck me as wrong. The Army trainer just seemed like one of those people that has ALL the answers. BLECCH!

One last thing, for any of you who say "Blah, blah, blah, they take SCARS, I read it in a magazine in some ad. You DONT know what you are talking about." Thats right, look at how that sounds, now dont say it. I could care less what a mag says, I spoke to these men in person.

07-08-2000, 08:06 AM
*Puntin'* this to the top.

By traditional weaponry, I am talking knives and other modern weapons.

[This message has been edited by Arioch7 (edited 07-08-2000).]

07-08-2000, 08:46 AM
Quick way to get stuck with a bayonet in the back if you ask me. Depends on the circumstance like everything else. I watched the program and what I didn't like was that he said something like if someone tells you this is how you break someones neck you should not believe it because that person has probably never broken anybody's neck before. But if he tells you this is how you break an arm we should believe him because either himself or the Gracies have done it. So that means if someone tells me that the human head has only a certain range of motion left to right and if you were to twist it with a sudden jerk making it go past that range of motion then I should not believe that the neck will break because this person has never actually tried it...ha, ha , ha!!! Any true authentic art is based on techniques that worked for the founder and those who continued to develop their prospective arts.


07-08-2000, 08:54 AM
I gotta kinda agree with you there, I was picking up the samething. Goes to show you, the blind are everywhere. BTW, I completely agree with you about the SCARS thing, it was only used in the early eighties for BUDs, and from what I've heard hasn't been used since.-ED

"The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground...take them there. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up...keep them there. The mixed martial arts imply any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere."-a mix martial artist

07-08-2000, 11:11 AM
Now this is my question, when the senior officer was talking about the techniques, he said that they favored the mount, but don't Royce and Rorion favor the guard? I mean stuff can change, but i can swear that i heard Royce saying he prefers to fight from the guard.

My two cents...

Peace /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

07-08-2000, 08:53 PM
LOL! I hear ya' Loki. I forgot about that. I was thinking to myself, "Blah, blah, blah. HE has never broken anyones neck." Funny, considering that the armed forces have people that have ACTUALLY done this. If they want to rely on the Gracies instead of thier own... fine by me.

Ginsuedog, I was watching it amd first I went NICE, they are actually using BJJ. Then, after watching this for a few minutes I went... "Oh oh, something stinks here."

Finally, for illusionfist (Glad you did not take this as a flame to the Gracies.), I read Senior Gracie in inside KF and I try to catch up on as many developments as possible, I am not a BJJer but every time I have seen Royce fight, he has used the guard A LOT more then the Mount.

07-08-2000, 09:17 PM
Sorry, I do not see BJJ as a viable battlefield art. Simply for the following reasons:
1) It is not designed to be used against multiple opponenets. The emphasis is on taking one opponent to the ground. I will admit that there are techniques for fighting multiple opponenets but that is nto the emphasis.
2) The predisposition of going to the ground is a good way to get oneself killed or seriously injured in battle.
3) In a combat situation most Rangers and other soldiers will be wearing backpacks and a load of other gear which weighs a little bit /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Just imagine yourself rolling on the ground with a 50-80lb ruck on your back. Is that a good idea??
4) Despite the romantic idea of fighitng one on one and hand to hand, most "real" combat takes place with weapons and at a distance.
5) Rangers are taught to operate in a squad and team type of envrionment. It is more likely beneficial to work on knife techniques geared towards eleminating sentires and such.
6) There are two goals in the US Army. To injure your opponent from a distance. The teory behind this is that by injuring one man you will require others to care for him. Thus for that one attack you can tie up several of the enemy.
The other is to kill or neutralize the enemy as quickly and as efficiently/quietly as possible. Thus rolling aorudn with an opponenet while trying to make him submit or kill him is not a good idea. I would rather sneak up behind him and slit his throat.

The show was a nice advertisement for BJJ and I am sure there are some things worth training from that art. But it is hardly, IMHO, the Ultimate or best fighting art for the military.

BTW, did they say which Ranger Battalion this was? If it was the 1st Battalion then I can understand as they were a little behind the times.

All the way and then some-275th rules.



07-09-2000, 12:03 AM
While I do know that some BJJ techniques have been added by guys in the ASF, BJJ is not a mainstay. Some of the more popular arts seem to be Hwarang Do and Okinawan karate, but there is not a "system". While a great ground fighting art "rolling" is not conducive to stealth.

IMO I think it's being taught as a confidence builder.

laughing tiger
07-09-2000, 01:20 AM
super posts by everyone...good observations :-) I was waiting to see if I was going to be the only one who smelled something odd when I watched the army ranger section of the program. I saw quite a few opportunities to perform devastating blows to the eyes and throat, as well as vital and nerve strikes. Guess people just don't think about those things much :-O I was not at all impressed. I saw much better (IMHO) techniques being trained in with the marine corps at Camp Pendleton in the mid 80's...I was not a Marine.
As far as the rest of the show....I was impressed with the Taijiquan and Mr. Tan and the scrappy dutch guy (I'd like to have a few beers with him....LOL), but nothing else impressed me at all. Just my opinion...where my head is at...doesn't mean I'm "right", you know? :-)

The worst fear is the fear of living...

-Theodore Roosevelt

laughing tiger
07-09-2000, 01:22 AM
by the way, I am in no way dissing BJJ...great art :-)

07-09-2000, 02:50 AM
I think something to keep in mind, and this WAS actually pointed out explicitly by the officer, is that the hand-to-hand training was less to give the soldiers actual H2H skills, and more to give them confidence.

07-09-2000, 03:23 AM
I'm about positive that the guy said that they can actually train someone to be a better fighter in 15-40 hours this way.

Recently I was on a plane with a Ranger, and I asked him if they taught him how to fight hand to hand. He said that he had a few days of hand to hand training, but nothing serious.

I don't think that any hand to hand art will have much use on a modern battlefield.

It seems to me that BJJ is used in this case because it can be effectively utilized without a lot of training. A fighter with a rudimentary grasp of gaining a superior position is better off than a fighter with a rudimentary understanding of how to throw a roundhouse.

07-09-2000, 03:38 AM
He did say that, but he also said it wasn't the point. That segment began with a speil about how battles are won with guns and than H2H training won't help win wars, but it may help enforce the attitude that helps win wars.

07-09-2000, 04:58 AM
you know I saw some of the show. but what strikes me more is that why train massive hand to hand at all. YES IT"S IMPORTANT. but Rangers operate in platoons of large numbers. it's a very different environment than say a SEAL platoon on 5-7 men. see. so although I'd teach knife defense and some lethal stuff, I'l worry more about quick neck snaps and eye gouges and stuff. I'd teach them easy lethal moves and stuff and worry less about massive hand to hand for every situation. besides if they're natural born fighters then they should be able to improvise. and if they aren't well why are they in teh army where they are paid to fight LOL (just kidding)

"In a fight, there is no second place."

07-09-2000, 07:50 AM
I wonder what's going to happen if those Rangers end up in a ground war with the chinese? www.rovere.com (http://www.rovere.com)

07-09-2000, 11:48 AM
Concentrating very much on BJJ is a waste for the army, an introductory course to increase options and awareness of submissions would be good along with some dirty tricks I could agree with but they need to concentrate on their guns, tanks, and blowing **** up.
BTW, getting someone in the guard is very easy, getting someone in the mount requires a takedown and maneuvering around their legs which is much harder. This is why Royce always ends up in the guard. Any grappler in their right mind would take the mount over the guard as it is a very dominant position and the guard is not.

07-09-2000, 02:34 PM
I have always wondered why hand to hand combat is taught in the army ISnt it hard to apply an armlock on a guy with a gun ?

Cliff Mattox
07-09-2000, 06:41 PM
Dont you all see? Its President Clintons new plan to make the army more gay friendly! Get those big tough guys rolling around on the mats with other sweaty opponents and who knows where it might lead?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

07-09-2000, 09:02 PM
I don't doubt that BJJ is effective as a fighting system, and I do see it's uses on the battlefield considering BJJ is about position first. I just thought that the ranger instructor just seemed a little bias is all. Considering that they have broken down the core of BJJ to just 13 techniques I don't see why it couldn't be learned in a few weeks or even days. Hell a week of BJJ makes a huge difference. BTW, as for the multiple opponents thing, that's why Rangers learn how to use a rifle.-ED

P.S.-Wongsifu, not as hard as trying to use Monkey Kung Fu on a guy with a gun /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground...take them there. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up...keep them there. The mixed martial arts imply any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere."-a mix martial artist

[This message has been edited by GinSueDog (edited 07-10-2000).]

07-09-2000, 09:10 PM
I know that is not always the case. My uncle was a ranger with the 82 airborne during the Gulf War and was behind enemy lines a number of times before the ground war even started locating targets for both airstrikes and artillery. He told me they worked both in small and large groups depending on what needed to get done.-ED

"The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground...take them there. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up...keep them there. The mixed martial arts imply any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere."-a mix martial artist

Paul DiMarino
07-09-2000, 09:30 PM
Hey guys,

The Ranger instructor on that documentary stated that (I'm paraphrasing) the training was to build "confidence" and a "warrior spirit". The army uses guns, knives, explosives, etc. Hand-to-hand fighting isn't really much of a concern.

07-10-2000, 06:52 PM
I hate to take a different view on this, but watching just the brief spots they had, I can see why they focus on BJJ. In enemy territory, or even in friendly territory, during a war, you want to keep low to the ground, perhaps hide among the brush. They train to keep low, so training in something like (my beloved) taekwondo or (my other beloved) kung fu, wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. They're accustomed to throwing their center of gravity toward the ground and working with their body down there. Learning BJJ helps to enforce that practice, I would think. But, I will admit, I know NOTHING about what Army Rangers actually do.

07-10-2000, 07:14 PM
Hey guys, just my 2 cents worth,

As far as I know from my great-uncle Herb, the Canadian equivalent to the Rangers would be the commando squads he trained in during the Second World War. Seeing as we’re talking about training ‘warrior spirit’ and what would be the best hand-to-hand system for elite fighting group, I thought people on the board would be interested to know that Herb’s particular group got trained by Ghurkas. Ghurkas – and anyone who knows more jump in here – are the mountain guides of the indigenous people who inhabit the mountain ranges of Nepal… they’re most commonly known for the knives they carry - kuhkris (sp?) – which are roughly a foot long and slightly curved.

Anyhoo, Herb and co. would set up in a field with trenches or obstacles in the middle of the night and attempt to defend their particular area against Ghurka incursions… according to Herb these guys just came out of no-where and didn’t make a sound. Herb never stressed any kind of fighting style – he used to box - but he said that these guys were really unnerving. I just thought it was interesting that at his time the emphasis seemed to be on making them train with people that were better than them, and now it seems to be more a matter of ‘style’ and system.


Gargoyle again
07-10-2000, 07:54 PM
I'll have to watch the tape again, but I remember the Ranger guy saying something like "We take only 6 or so moves and train those and throw out the rest. You only need to know one way to break an arm" and then giving the impression that the short instruction period turned them into deadly fighters. It seemed a little bit more of "rah rah" confidence boosting than actually intended to be used on the battlefield.

I think we've reached the period in time though where kung fu is no longer useful or effective as a battlefield art, and now must be considered from the value of personal self-defense.

I have had friends that have been through infantry training, one from my kung fu group. He returned to class from army training and said with his six months from us he'd been able to walk into basic training already a better hand to hand fighter than his army intructors were /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The military guys are tough-as-nails warriors when it comes to the entirety of the battlefield, but just because someone is a green beret doesn't mean that they are a deadly hand-to-hand master. Although I'd still never wish to fight one /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

07-10-2000, 08:21 PM
Robin, that is one very good point you brought up. I did not even think of it.

Rangers function more like "Light Infantry" then regular grunts. They hit airports, bridges and targets which require speed and precision. They dont spend much time in the dirt if they can help it. Of course, dure to the fortunes of war, they must act like regular infantry much of the time. The paragraph below is NOT for the politically correct.

Mow, I realize I am in the minority when it comes to HtH training. I am 100% for it. I have read studies from the Department Of Defense that have stated that a true "Killing" mentality is VERY rare in todays society. Modern society is tickled pink that "smart" bombs and automated weapons will take the place of actual down and dirty fighting. This is the biggest load of BS that I have seen.

We let the Albanians in former Yugoslavia get completely uprooted from thier homes and a great deal of them were killed. In effect, the war was waged to be "Politically correct" No troops lives were considered worth the risk. My opinion is Fight or DONT fight. If we do fight, dont do it half-assed.

I am posting this because society's mindset is indicative of the effectiveness of the Armed forces. "Modern Army soldiers dont NEED to fight HtH" This is what I hear often... what if they are taken prisoner? Also, this modern garbage is predicated on the fact that we have the worlds strongest military. What if we got our ass's kicked? What if our armed forces were over-run? What if we had to "fight them in the fields, fight them in the hills... and NEVER surrender?" /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifSorry, I couldn't help myself.

The Marine Corps has it right. They are ALL WARRIORS and they train everyone AS Warriors, including mess cooks. As for the "politically correct", people that do not want to be exposed to warfare shouldn't join the Military.

Do you know that the Army recently wanted me to join as a Reservist and they WAIVED all Infantry training because I had prior service? I WORKED ON PLANES!?!?! Pathetic.

07-10-2000, 09:38 PM
Hmmm...I think it generally depends on the mission, both the US Army and US Marine Corp have in general different missions from one another. Also keep in mind the Army is much larger and in general has different groups within it designed for different missions. I know for a fact from speaking with my uncle, a ranger in the 82nd Airborne, that he worked both in small and large groups while serving in Iraq. One of his jobs was to pinpoint targets across enemy lines for both artillery and airstrikes. It all depends on the mission. If everyone did the same thing and trained the same way we wouldn't need to have different serves and wouldn't be multidimenional anymore. I think one of the few groups that actually needs to learn H2H combat training are our pilots as they are the ones that will most likely need it. Here's a story I know some of you are likely aware of from the Discovery series on the Inside, a group of eight Rangers went far behind enemy lines to watch a key Iraq road. Anyways to make a long story short they were discovered and ended up getting into a fire fight with both the local militia and Iraq soldiers. By the time they were air lifted out they had killed over one hundred enemy soldiers and had not lost a single man. None of the Iraq soldiers had been able to get very close to them as five of the eight were trained snipers. Like I said earlier different training for different services for different missions.-ED

"The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground...take them there. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up...keep them there. The mixed martial arts imply any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere."-a mix martial artist

[This message has been edited by GinSueDog (edited 07-11-2000).]