No_Know: They do have such a form - that rifle-twirl thingie.
No_Know: They do have such a form - that rifle-twirl thingie.
I was fliping through channels yesterday morning and on TCM they had an amazing army training film from like 1960 or something. The techniques were brutal you know police type techniques. They had awesome bayonet stuff.
I do not ever see Sifu do anything that could be construed as a hula dancer- hasayfu
A soldier is always with his weapon. Very rare will he not have it. If he runs out of ammo he keeps the weapon and puts on the bayonette or just clubs people.
Empty hand fighting is a skill, so is fighting with a weapon. Now you need time for both. Soldier do not drive out to a training area, they march for hours, train along the way, time is another issue.
Sure they have a new H2H, and it can be used as a sport (grappling) but realities make it difficult to do.
I'll repost this. Sometimes things happen when the weapon won't be at hand.A soldier is always with his weapon. Very rare will he not have it. If he runs out of ammo he keeps the weapon and puts on the bayonette or just clubs people.
I quit after getting my first black belt because the school I was a part of was in the process of lowering their standards A painfully honest KC Elbows
The crap that many schools do is not the crap I was taught or train in or teach.
Dam nit... it made sense when it was running through my head.
DM
People love Iron Crotch. They can't get enough Iron Crotch. We all ride the Iron Crotch for the exposure. Gene
Find the safety flaw in the training. Rory Miller.
Yeah, because only you know the truth. Jesus, you're an arrogant SOB.Originally posted by lkfmdc
well, that WOULD explain the stupid things that are posted here
"i can barely click the link. but i way why stop drinking .... i got ... moe .. fcke me ..im out of it" - GDA on Traditional vs Modern Wushu
---------------------------------------------
but what if the man of steel hasta fight another man of steel only that man of steel knows kung fu? - Kristoffer
---------------------------------------------
How do you think monks/strippers got started before the internet? - Gene Ching
---------------------------------------------
Find your peace in practice. - Gene Ching
At times, we need to look into the newly revised Webster's KFO to English dictionary and see what people REALLY mean
"arrogant SOB" - smart enough to recognize how ridiculous this thread is, ie how silly it is to talk about forms training for close quarters combat.
alternately, educated enough to realize that EVERY successful military that has created a close quarters combat system followed the same formula, ie "live training" as opposed to dead forms training. Russia = Sambo, Japan = Judo, China = San Shou
See how simple things are when you have the proper dictionary
Military does not have much use for H2H and I see the use of it further declining in the future.
Even a few centuries ago, most soldiers relied more on weapons combat than H2H.
For a soldier H2H will always be a backup in case he looses his weapon.
Going to the ground during ancient warfare = death, if you didn't get killed by an enemy soldier there was a good chance of being stepped on by a horse or similar.
Modern day weapons & gear are becoming more and more sophisticated and more time is needed to learn them, problem is there is only so much time given for training thus H2H training will suffer.
The basic H2H training that an average soldier receives is minimal at best and not much time is spend on keeping the skill up-to-date if at all.
Ratios of course vary between units and special forces.
Most people that claim to have taught special forces ofen only did so for a few afternoons, as many get invited to evaluate what they got to offer.
In the end now as well as in the old days Military H2H will be a jumbled lot from a few systems stripped down to the bare essentials to suit the current needs.
"I have also noticed a number of people(on this forum and elsewhere) state that kung fu takes time to learn, which is the reason a 6 month student of Muay Thai can whoop a 6 month student of kung fu."
I for one think this line of thinking is a big steaming pile.
If you can't apply what you've trained in 6 months time, either what you're learning sucks or your training is crap.
I have to agree. Currently I'm learning the combative side of a traditional style of karate and kata is not being used to teach anything. Principles and hands on use of them is how I'm being taught. I still like forms but as a vehicle for progressing in the arts they leave much to be desired."arrogant SOB" - smart enough to recognize how ridiculous this thread is, ie how silly it is to talk about forms training for close quarters combat.
alternately, educated enough to realize that EVERY successful military that has created a close quarters combat system followed the same formula, ie "live training" as opposed to dead forms training. Russia = Sambo, Japan = Judo, China = San Shou
Last edited by rogue; 10-23-2003 at 06:39 PM.
I quit after getting my first black belt because the school I was a part of was in the process of lowering their standards A painfully honest KC Elbows
The crap that many schools do is not the crap I was taught or train in or teach.
Dam nit... it made sense when it was running through my head.
DM
People love Iron Crotch. They can't get enough Iron Crotch. We all ride the Iron Crotch for the exposure. Gene
Find the safety flaw in the training. Rory Miller.
First, I don't think a number of you who responded to this read my original post in the first place. I asked if Kung Fu could be taught for military use, or does it take too much time for proficiency to be viable for today's soldier? If kung fu is so good, why can't it be used by people who actually fight to survive? I know the basic needs the military wants to fulfill in it's H2H training and I listed them in my first post! I said, "The idea is to teach a mass number of people combat effective techniques quickly and efficiently in such a manner as the student will also be able to retain, and thus use, the skills when it counts." IS KUNG FU SUITED FOR THIS PURPOSE? IF SO, DOES IT NEED TO CHANGE TO ACCOMODATE MODERN SOLDIERING EQUIPMENT?
I never mentioned forms anywhere in my post. I can get into a great debate on the relevance, or irrelevance, of forms on a different thread. That wasn't my question. But if all you think Kung Fu is is forms...then so be it. However, that's still not my question.
SAMantis- Thank you, you at least read the post and gave an opinion without coming off as insulting. But, in relation to your answer, so if one style isn't enough, would a blend of KF styles be effective or do you think KF in general is not suited for military use?
Shaolintiger00- How so? All I've seen and been taught of BJJ(only rudimentry so I can't comment on the whole system, just my exposure) has been one on one, not 3-1 etc. MY CLF study had training for 2-1, 3-1 etc.
Ikfmdc- I have no idea what you posted. I don't live here, I just post when I have a question or feel I can help somebody with my limited knowledge. So I don't read EVERY post, just the ones with titles that interest me. Yours evidently didn't. Also, if your smart enough to see how "silly" it is to discuss FORMS for military H2H, you'd be smart enough to see I NEVER MENTIONED FORMS IN MY POST ANYWAY. There's more to KF than forms.
No_Know- That idea of a form specific to each unit could work but, I think the idea is to have a common set of techniques taught to everyone so all commanders know what they can expect of their soldiers. However, SF units etc, could use that idea, but what systems/techniques would you include?
Ford Prefect- It probably is, I'm just wondering why KF wasn't in there. I'm sure there's a good reason, I'm just trying to figure it out, especially since KF appears to be better suited to multiple attackers than the other systems-at least so far as I know.
Tai Ji Monkey- I beg to differ, I think H2H is becoming increasingly relevant to the modern soldier. The point of the Army Times article was that soldiers need more non-lethal methods of neutralization than are currently available, due to the increase in peace-keeping missions and POW capture where not every encounter necessitates the death of the enemy. I can cite a few examples -either true stories from the article, or hypothetical- later if you would like.
Neigung- I agree, so what, if anything, from KF can be taught to serve the modern military's needs?
-ZC
"Whole body become secret weapon." -Uncle explaining the benefits of Kung Fu.
"The thorn *****s only those who would harm the rose."
I would agree when it comes to peace-keeping mission.Originally posted by zen_celt
Tai Ji Monkey- I beg to differ, I think H2H is becoming increasingly relevant to the modern soldier. The point of the Army Times article was that soldiers need more non-lethal methods of neutralization than are currently available, due to the increase in peace-keeping missions and POW capture where not every encounter necessitates the death of the enemy. I can cite a few examples -either true stories from the article, or hypothetical- later if you would like.
-ZC
OTOH, I think that warfare and peace-keeping should be handled by diffferent groups as I don't think the training can realisticly cover both aspects.
One reason why I think European troops are better suited for that purpose than the US Army.
"One reason why I think European troops are better suited for that purpose than the US Army."
Right..........
European troops make better police......
Yeah. They'd make better Americans too.
"i can barely click the link. but i way why stop drinking .... i got ... moe .. fcke me ..im out of it" - GDA on Traditional vs Modern Wushu
---------------------------------------------
but what if the man of steel hasta fight another man of steel only that man of steel knows kung fu? - Kristoffer
---------------------------------------------
How do you think monks/strippers got started before the internet? - Gene Ching
---------------------------------------------
Find your peace in practice. - Gene Ching
I liked this quote:
Take one fighter and train him in kung fu for a year and he will get beat by a guy that trained as a boxer for a year.
Take one fighter and train him 7 years in kung fu and he can simultaneously beat 4 boxers that were trained for 7 years.
themeecer actually shares a lot of the passion that Bruce Lee had about adopting techniques into your own way of 'expressing yourself.'
-shaolinarab
(Nicest thing ever said about me on these boards.)
yeah but that quote is total bollocks. one guy vs four people who have no training- he will still probably lose.
"If there is no grand plan; if there is no big picture; if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do."