I wouldn't disagree with the difference between warrior cultures and soldiers engaged in warfare. But...
Originally Posted by u1ysses
Isn't it interesting, then, that modern US forces have turned to martial arts as a means of instilling a "warrior culture" within the service. Obviously the Marines are leading this as they have combined lessons on great warrior cultures of the past within the MCMAP curriculum. The Army drops the world "warrior" frequently into the MACP written material. And I even see references to "warrior" ethos in Air Force press releases. The Air Force has even announced that it is adopting the Army MAC Program for Airmen to help make "warriors."
All of the modern US combatives draw heavily on the sport arts of Judo, BJJ, Muay Thai, and Boxing. The sport aspect has been one of the most heavily criticized aspects of the programs.
It's been mentioned already in this thread that martial arts is hardly a primary skill set for modern warfighters. However the Army and Marines have collected hundreds of After Action reports from service members who have used combatives skills in theater.
The first few posts showed the argument about sport versus combat training has been ongoing for thousands of years, with evidence accumulating on both sides. Personally, creating this strict dichotomy seems limiting to me. It does create a fascinating argument, however.
Originally Posted by Styygens
Oh man. Do you know what this means? It's official. The most modern and most powerful army the world has ever seen is now utilizing MMA, Muay Thai, BJJ, Judo and Boxing in war to KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MMA is finally t3h r33l d3adly!!! Now when someone says, "yeah well MMA is for the ring, my gong foo is from war thousands of years ago" we can say "yeah well not only does MMA beat your gong foo in the ring and in the street, but now also in war as well".
i don't think some people get it.
most (good) armies tend to have rough sports: boxing, rugby, general h2h: to roughen people up, so you get punched or a bit of cuts, you're a soldier!
besides great shape this also instills selfrespect and pride into young individuals.
better an arrogant stormtrooper then an insecure one.(if you must choose that is)
and ofcourse running, lots and lots of running!
for your stamina you say?
**** no, it's to teach you some fookin attitude, that you keep going eventhough it feels your knees are about to snap and you could cough up your lungs any minute now.
running is more about mental stamina, a test of willpower.
also a lotta teamsports: work together.
forget al the rambo crap, if you cant work in a team the army isnt for you.
i'd say bjj is awesome for military personel: its rough, but you cant spas because it wont help you:you must develop a plan and tactics under stress and in real time.
and it teaches you to keep your ass down at the same time!
i think the difference here bieng pointed out as misstated by "chi masters" and "fakers".
(i hate the tma vs. mma because there is only good training methods and bad and i KNOW the common useage of mma typically incorporates that- but my pissing on and trying to re-write commonly accepted slang and idioms is not at issue here.)
is that yes, its true- soldiers are training for combat to develop a killer mentality- and there is a difference between having your buddy's guts splatter all over you and you blowing off some enemies head off than thiere is you shooting your rifle on a target range- even in soldier camp.
i think the difference between quality sportative training and combat is approach- and so called "tmaers" who want to somehow use that as an excuse to not train realistically will say that "well we train to kill", umm- just because you don't train for a specific (even limited and not very restrictive) ruleset doesn't mean you are developing the mentaltiy of a soldier training to kill his opponent for the favor of Flying Spaghetti Monster and Country.
but this- just like the actual use of ruleset and "well you train with rules and we can eyepoke" is just an excuse.
you can put a pig in a dress but at the end of the day its still a pig-
bad training is bad training, and pigs are pigs no matter HOW you dress them up. but there is a difference between training to kill like a soldier does and training to deliver, fight and take punishment like a prize fighter does.
ask ali if you think there is no difference. on one level he was the greatest heavyweight of his time (or all time depending on your opinion- which isn't an issue here), yet he didnt' want to do any soldiering.
its the mentality that separates the two- but some lazy or bad teacher pretending that they play "marines" doesnt' mean that they are preparing thier students for the "real thing".
i think often too many people try to muddy the water and just plain make excuses for bad training- this level of analysis IMO is not necessary.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO