Basic principles

[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!

[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.