More CQC in training

[flying ninja]

What does everyone think to more CQC training in basic training as i have heard/learnt from people that the CQC training is rather restricted or not at all in some regiments.
Not UFC stuff i mean the real stuff which is illegal to usw in the streets and for civilians to learn, the stuff of techniques that can end a fight within seconds and i mean seconds, i know some of this stuff but when i get to shodan(black belt) you start to learn it on a hardcore scale, and thats because i was lucky enough to find a club that doesn't do martial arts for sport or self defenceor well maybe self defence, but it's based on japanese battlefield techniques so it's been made to work when you have to use your hands against men with armor on so it works against someone with or without modern body armor on plus its a full weapons system which is just interesting and can be modified to modern combat.

One problem with teaching this too troops would be could they be trusted with that knowledge and to never use it in the streets but only for combat, when the chances of hand to hand combat is still slim but in an urban area you never know.

What you all think?

I'd just like to say i'm only saying this by what i've learnt, i'm 16 and haven't been through training or combat so i don't really know anything i suppose, just thought i'd say before people start having a go at me.
Sorry went on abit about my martial arts lol just like it too much.

[t_o_m_!]

im currently in training and i think CQC is ace, i think they should do more of it in RT.

[Nickosx]

Yea agree there CQC is brilliant, very basic at the moment but still pretty good, always done in a chilled out atmosphere aswell, king of the ring is also pretty good

[themattmeister]

Is there any sort of sparring done in CQC? For example grappling and then applying various choke holds etc till tap out.

[Spooky]

Hey Flying Ninja - few points for you buddy:

Nothing unarmed is illegal to use in the streets and anyone can learn anything from anywhere. *If* your instructor has hinted at such things - he is a walt. Example - many forms of traditional Jiu Jitsu still teach its 7th assasination [techniques] Kata.

Martial arts while they are a better tool to have than nothing at all, are not best applied to self defence, reason being all martial arts (not modern fighting systems) are based on a system of honour and rules - where as self defence is not.

In fact it irritates the crap out of me when I find a self defence class thats a slightly modified form of martial art or based upon techniques and scenarios.

I am curious to hear more of these Japanese battlefield techniqeues though - last I heard they tended to use weapons. What that means is any technique your talking about is going to be in an armed context, either with at the longest ranges a Naginata, down to up close and personal with a Tanto - and of course everything in between.

Personally I can see no practical application of what you speak in either self defence or the modern scope of operations. If your close enough to your enemy to worry about CQC you've a bayonet - if thats not an option for some reason, you've got a boiled up Brit with bags of aggression and you would hope at least his oppo to pile in with, in with simple skills already taught.


Its good your keen on your training in the martial arts - but be very much aware that martial arts are not the be-all and end all of someones defencive concerns and on that note that some of the stuff put forward by instructors as good self defence is totally in appropriate. Example: Judo instructors teaching 5'2 105lbs women how do execute throws and arm locks from a weight based competition system.

Martial arts next evolution has been Mixed Martial Arts - but even that has rules - self defence does not.



Question for the guys in training now - in the CQC stuff are you guys taught to punch much...?

[flying ninja]

I can see what you are saying, and there are some things which will get you arrested if you try to use them, take the naked strangle hold for instance, because there's such a short time between unconsciousness and death you will be arrested for placing it on someone because it shows intent to kill, just like other things.

Yeh you can learn things everywhere but personally i think that's stupid,people should only be taught the hardcore techniques once they have gained the trust of the instructor and are a high enough grade.

Honour and rules in martial arts it's down to the person, thats my opinion, in training yes you have to bow and show courtesy, but how you use your martial arts is down to the individual, for instance one of my instructors wouldn't like to kill someone if they attacked him and his life was in danger he would prefer just to gouge eyes out or something, but the other would kill someone.

Teaching people techniques which does not suite their body type is just stupid i agree, the way we work is the tradition way of teaching which is by fitting the martial arts to the pupil rather than the pupil to the martial art, which is the opposite wayof the western way of teaching.

http://www.combative-arts.com/bujutsu.html
Here's a page on our site about the japanese battlefield techniques, called bujutsu, that page mainly goes on about the weapons but we have loads of hand to hand combat involved and other weapons.



Heres a picture of my pretty sword, hand made, high carbon steel, so i need to oil it, blunt but was sharp once upon a time, but hand to make it blunt for insurance reasons lol, you know they are sharp enough to go through a land rover, and we know this because two of the instructors tried it lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdF9k0HVn7E
That's also interesting.

[Spooky]

I can see what you are saying, and there are some things which will get you arrested if you try to use them, take the naked strangle hold for instance, because there's such a short time between unconsciousness and death you will be arrested for placing it on someone because it shows intent to kill, just like other things.

Thats not true at all. To show an intent to kill you would have to (among other things) maintain the strangle for a period of time beyond that which the person loses consciousness. The time between unconsciousness and death remains 3-4 minutes before the cells on the brain begin to die because of hypoxia and cellular acidosis. A big bone of contention of mine when you see someone 'strangled to death' in a film and it takes about 15 seconds to apparantly KILL them..!


Yeh you can learn things everywhere but personally i think that's stupid,people should only be taught the hardcore techniques once they have gained the trust of the instructor and are a high enough grade.

I agree. Though define 'hardcore'? Any idiot joining a class on day one is taught things which can harm. From basic punching to locks - which if applied too hard are limb destroying things. At least in the context of self defence - the only techniques are 'hardcore' - eye gouging, biting off chunks, throat punching/elbows (punching's bad - elbows are better - harder to hurt yourself, more efficient movement, sharper and 60% more power).

Honour and rules in martial arts it's down to the person, thats my opinion,

True, but the systems themselves were developed in a different context. For example many locks, holds and soforth end up with the person restrained in a position to act against you in some way, even a simple bite because the roots of the form were conceived in a time where this would not happen/could not happen because of face plates for example.

in training yes you have to bow and show courtesy, but how you use your martial arts is down to the individual, for instance one of my instructors wouldn't like to kill someone if they attacked him and his life was in danger he would prefer just to gouge eyes out or something,

All skills are scaleable. You can punch someone in the throat only hard enough to get their attention (if you see what I mean!) or you can punch them with all your might and probably crush it - maybe killing them.

but the other would kill someone.

Hes a f***ing idiot then.

Teaching people techniques which does not suite their body type is just stupid i agree, the way we work is the tradition way of teaching which is by fitting the martial arts to the pupil rather than the pupil to the martial art, which is the opposite wayof the western way of teaching.

That is an interesting break from tradition - a good one though. Does it impact of any competitions you may do? I had a similar thing with an instructor of mine - he taught with a strong practical slant over the traditional Kata execution - when we did any competitions loads of us got slated for being 'too agressive'. Its a martial art for gods sake, not bloody patty cakes... People eh?

http://www.combative-arts.com/bujutsu.html
Here's a page on our site about the japanese battlefield techniques, called bujutsu, that page mainly goes on about the weapons but we have loads of hand to hand combat involved and other weapons.

Ok, but I still dont see a comparable application between that and a modern fighting context, either military or self defencive.

I don't mean to sound like I'm picking you apart like - just some of the stuff you appear to have been informed of is somewhat awry...

[flying ninja]

oops just noticed when i said that he'd kill someone thats only if his life was in danger.

For competitions, we don't compete,but the idea is if we were to compete you are trained in everything but you'd try to mainly use the stuff your best at, take me for instance im built for more grappling, thorwing etc so i'd try to use that but i'd be able to do powerful kicks, if you see what i mean, what we do isn't a sporting style, but when i'm 18 me and my instructor have an agreement that i'm going to train for MMA, which shouln't be too hard as i already know alot of what they do.

When i say hardcore i mean techniques that can be devistating, not things like kicking and striking you can teach that too any fool, but the techniques like rabbit fist, and pressure point striking and much more which i can't think off of the top of my head or don't know yet.

Our style is hard to explain, it's something you have to see and do to understand.

[Spooky]

oops just noticed when i said that he'd kill someone thats only if his life was in danger.

For competitions, we don't compete,but the idea is if we were to compete you are trained in everything but you'd try to mainly use the stuff your best at, take me for instance im built for more grappling, thorwing etc so i'd try to use that but i'd be able to do powerful kicks, if you see what i mean, what we do isn't a sporting style, but when i'm 18 me and my instructor have an agreement that i'm going to train for MMA, which shouln't be too hard as i already know alot of what they do.

When i say hardcore i mean techniques that can be devistating, not things like kicking and striking you can teach that too any fool, but the techniques like rabbit fist, and pressure point striking and much more which i can't think off of the top of my head or don't know yet.

Our style is hard to explain, it's something you have to see and do to understand.

His life is in danger if hes even in a simple fight. People have died because they've been punched once.

The law regarding use of force is quite clear - reasonable in the circumstances, no more than is required. Most people I know interpret 'reasonable in the circumstances' as basically up to and including the force being exerted on you. You can pre emptive strike if you can demonstrate if called to account for your actions that you felt you were in imminent danger and felt you were going to be attacked.

In theory at least, you could get away with killing someone if for example you could prove they were trying to kill you - but that would be so unlikely I not bank on the odds. It is almost inconceivable that the only way someone was able to defend themselves was by killing their attacker.

Causing accidental death through your actions aside - if you kill someome in self defence - your stuffed.


Again though - 'hardcore' - there is no real 'hardcore' stuff. A simple punch applied correctly can be devastating, a simple lock applied INCORRECTLY can be devastating - and vice versa of course. Its a fickle thing.

I mean no disrespect to you - but you have been misinformed of a few things and certainly your training is lacking when it comes to the theoretical side, and the legalities of use of force - which is critical when applying martial arts to self defence applications.

Which is incidentally another bone of contention of mine - self defence is about more that what to do when the time comes.

Whats your thoughts?

[sneaky beaky]

flying ninja

CQB isn't taught in basic traing because it is a total waste of time.
If any "squaddie", of any regiment, got that close to the enemy, he would have failed to do his task.
A bullet travels travels much faster than a ninja's hand. (Or foot!)
Even SF do not rate CQB techniques much more than teaching basic self defence.
Leave all this exotic, oriental martial arts stuff where it belongs. In movies and in sports halls.
Sorry to disappoint all you young ninja's, but it is all an illusion!!
Sneaky

[ali_hire]

CQB isn't taught in basic traing because it is a total waste of time.
If any "squaddie", of any regiment, got that close to the enemy, he would have failed to do his task.

Too true. About as useful as a bayonet charge.

[Alfa]

Sneaky is right, I've heard loads of guys talking about how great martial arts are and you see all those Hollywood movies of guy doing these great moves but in reality it'd never happen, people always resort to the basics ie punch, kick and butt them.

The best reason I've heard of why not to bother teaching recruits CQC is that under stressful conditions, with the body full of endorphines and adrenaline, you can't perform complex motor tasks such as that required for throws etc.. required for the fancy moves you see in CQC books/films. It'd probably be different if you'd been doing it since you were a kid and it was totally ingrained in you but the vast majority of people, even those profficient in martial arts, will resort to basic kicking and punching in an actual fight.

The only stuff they should teach is taking out a sentry by say breaking their neck etc..., or is that just my fantasy coming out here

[HarryAVFC]

Yea agree there CQC is brilliant, very basic at the moment but still pretty good, always done in a chilled out atmosphere aswell, king of the ring is also pretty good

How much CQC have you done in training so far nickosx and is the CQC any particular style? or are you doing what JSharps refered to in a previous thread called a 'progressive fighting system'?

[Nickosx]

basically just striking and grappling, where were bouted agianst each other on the judo matswe hardly ever have it, only had 3 or 4 sessions so far i think

[mancuniankid]

925 troop have had 4 lessons on it so far and another 3 when we go back, so by the end of week 7 we would have done 7 lessons. Its all good fun but i did street defence just over a year ago and was taught by an ex marine so i kinda already know it all plus more.

It great when we wrestle each other though