BJJ in the Army

[yamatodamashii]

Hello, again, everybody; long time no see! For those who don't know (or remember) me, I am a former U. S. Marine currently serving in the Missouri Army National Guard, and on deployment to several different bases within the continental U. S. to supplement on-post law enforcement.

Some time ago, I was involved in internet-based discussions of the viability of the newly-adopted Army hand-to-hand system based on Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (I did not, and continue not to, like it). I was informed, by the person who wrote the manual (I forget his name), that the decision had been made because no one was training in the already-existing system, and he wanted to make a program people could compete in, and would therefore be motivated to train in ("why not sambo, then", I asked).

I'm here to tell you, fourteen months of active duty and three bases later, THERE IS NO TRAINING. There is no competition. I cannot GET a seat for instructor's school. Nothing.

Oh, and I still think that a groundfighting system is really *bad* idea, tactically, for the basis of a military hand-to-hand program.

[ancalagon]

I don't know if you've seen the latest army Combatives manual, but they've concentrated almost all of it on BJJ techniques (mma being the fad and all). I don't like it. I think BJJ is great for competition or even for self-defense, but on the off chance you need to use h2h techniques in a combat situation, you must kill quickly. Most of the vital striking techniques from the 1992 Combatives manual were removed, as was an entire section on sentry removal, and the vital area map. I think grappling techniques are important, but not at the expense of striking.

[yamatodamashii]

Yes, it was a discussion with the author of that manual to which I was referring. You've brought up most of my objections, except one: mobility. It is a bad idea to train in a system in which groundfighting is the primary modus operandi, if one is training for an enviornment in which weapons and multiple opponents are a virtual certainty (such as running out of ammunition as your defensive position is overrun, vis a vis, military hand-to-hand).

[yamatodamashii]

Something interesting that just occurred to me--the abovementioned author stated that he used BJJ as the basis for the new h2h combatives because he wanted a system that could be used for competition... but the previous manual was based on Danzan-ryu jujutsu, which *is* a competitive system. In fact, those familiar with it often refer to it as "the other judo".

[Bad Karma]

Matt Larsen used to come here and debate/answer questions like this. I'm not a supoprter of the BJJ influence, either, for much of the reasons already posted. The Chief of Staff has made training in combatives mandatory, but there's no sign of it on the training schedules and I haven't seen any slots for the instructor training show up on the school listing, either. The manual needs another look and improvements made, IMHO.

Peace

[Jeff C.]

Tony, the course is now showing in ATRRS, under the Infantry school code.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[wab25]

============
but the previous manual was based on Danzan-ryu jujutsu, which *is* a competitive system. In fact, those familiar with it often refer to it as "the other judo".
============

????

The only competition in DZR is kata competition, and nobody really cares about who wins. We just make it an excuse to focus on certain techniques.

I have studied it for 7 years now, and never heard it refered to as "the other judo." Who calls it that?

I think BJJ is a great system for h2h combat. While I doubt that 90% of all fights end up on the ground, I am sure that a majority do. BJJ also has some good stand up and a lot of weapon disarms. The competive nature of BJJ has is good for keeping people practicing. And Kano proved that practice against a resisting opponent has a huge benefit.

Besides, if people are shooting all around me, I would rather be on the ground. And if you are engaged in h2h combat on a battlefield these days, then something went seriously wrong. Something about fighting multiple armed attackers with fully automatic guns and tanks says you will lose that one.

[Blue Dragon]

you see just what i was saying and yamatodamashiin pointed it out although ground figthing is very important i really wouldnt want to be on the floor in a battle field with a guy on top of me or me on top of him:)
plus whats the chances of you falling to the floor with a guy in the field? i mean theres so many weapons soilders can use these days even them shovels they have can be some sort of protection so i think they should really learn a aggresive stand up figth which also has some ground techniques.

[wab25]

Sorry, you are right. I was under the assumption that when surrounded by many people with machine guns, grenades, motars, flame throwers and tanks, that it wouldn't really matter whether I swung a fist or foot or shovel at them or learned a nifty take down and choke out. But I suppose that swinging a mean shovel is your best bet.

Of coarse if there is any crossfire, I may want to be on the ground, with an unconscious body on top of me....

[Bad Karma]

Thanks for the heads up, Jeffro! I'll bring this up in our training meeting tomorrow. I was asked to help conduct a combatives class for a reserve unit, now activated, on the 2nd of next month. This may be something I choose to pursue (certified combatives instructor) after I help with this class. I know they have a format to follow, but I agreed to help in order to actually see what I may or may not be getting into. The instructor is a level III but he's also a BJJ purple belt. Regardless, thanks again for the info.

Peace

[yamatodamashii]

============
The only competition in DZR is kata competition, and nobody really cares about who wins. We just make it an excuse to focus on certain techniques.

Here is an article on the practice of randori in Danzan ryu:
http://www.ajjf.org/article05.html
While the practice is apparently not as standardized as I had previously believed, it is still practiced. Okazaki certainly practiced randori.


============
I have studied it for 7 years now, and never heard it refered to as "the other judo." Who calls it that?

I first came across that appellation in *Black Belt* magazine in the 1980's. Before you start rolling your eyes, however, one of the largest DZR organizations around is the *American JUDO and Jujitsu Federation*--which does not Kodokan-ryu. In fact, as I recall, Okazaki came up with the name "Kodenkan" specifically to differentiate between his judo and Kano's.


============
I think BJJ is a great system for h2h combat. While I doubt that 90% of all fights end up on the ground, I am sure that a majority do. BJJ also has some good stand up and a lot of weapon disarms. The competive nature of BJJ has is good for keeping people practicing. And Kano proved that practice against a resisting opponent has a huge benefit.
Besides, if people are shooting all around me, I would rather be on the ground. And if you are engaged in h2h combat on a battlefield these days, then something went seriously wrong. Something about fighting multiple armed attackers with fully automatic guns and tanks says you will lose that one.

A) Brazilian jiu-jitsu is a great system for competitions. It seriously degrades in effectiveness when weapons and multiple opponents are introduced to the scenario. This is not to say that it is *useless*, but there are other systems which focus more on weaponry and multiple opponent situations. Danzan-ryu being one of them.
B) Disarms are, as Dan Inosanto put it, incidental if not accidental. One does not attempt to disarm the enemy soldier trying to kill him; one kills him first.
C) The competitive nature of Brazilian jiu-jitsu *would* be good for keeping people practicing *if* they are interested in competitions, and *if* competitions are made available, which, as I stated in my opening, they are not.
D) If you think that giving up your mobility in armed combat is a wise idea, then you are simply demonstrating that you do not have enough knowledge of the subject to offer an opinion. Only two things keep ground troops alive in a firefight: killing the enemy first, and moving faster than the enemy can track and shoot. If you are wrestling on the ground trying to choke one guy unconscious, 12 other guys will shoot you--or save the bullet and stab you with their bayonets.
E) Yes, obviously hand-to-hand combat is worst case scenario training for modern combatants. However, it is far preferable to have relevant survival skills than to have say "Well, I'm out of bullets. Guess I'm dead now." 'Cuz for servicemen, that doesn't mean another quarter in the video game (or 50 cents, I'm old); that means really dead.

[yamatodamashii]

Jeff and Tony:

I'm still getting used to this whole Army thing. Since it is listed as an Infantry school, that means that I will be unable to access it without transferring to an infantry unit, correct?

[Jeff C.]

Tony, sorry - it's showing in ATRRS for '06, I believe.

Jason, anybody can go to the school; it is run by the infantry school, but you do not have to be infantry to attend.

Tony, I got my cert this summer. Basic BJJ stuff for level one - VERY basic. You won't have a problem with it at all. Work your standup clinches; part of the final exam is tying up an instructor in a standing clinch (only the ones THEY show you!) while they are literally trying to knock you out - and of course you are not allowed to hit back. You will have to do this through multiple engagements, multiple instructors, so stamina can be a factor.

If you can't get orders to attend, if you don't mind taking leave they will probably slip you into a class to get you certified - it's only five days for level one. The combatives school at Ft. Bliss was VERY accomodating to me. I imagine Benning would be too.

If you want POC's for Bliss, let me know brother.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[wab25]

=============
Here is an article on the practice of randori in Danzan ryu:
http://www.ajjf.org/article05.html
While the practice is apparently not as standardized as I had previously believed, it is still practiced. Okazaki certainly practiced randori.
=============

The practice of randori is up to each dojo. Some dojos do a lot and some don't do it at all. There are no randori competitions. In fact, under the AJJF insurance, randori is not covered.

When randori is done, it is done for training, nothing more. In the article you posted, there are many different variations of rules, to focus on certain aspects. Most of us in the AJJF use randori as a place to explore and experiment. Certainly it shows us if we really can do what we think we can on a resisting opponent. But, it also answers many of the what ifs. But, since there is no competition involved, peoples egos stay out of it.

The only organised competitions in the AJJF are kata, freestyle or sumo competions. ( free style being each competitor is attacked for a few minutes and is judged on how he responds for effectiveness, variety and control )

==============
I first came across that appellation in *Black Belt* magazine in the 1980's. Before you start rolling your eyes, however, one of the largest DZR organizations around is the *American JUDO and Jujitsu Federation*--which does not Kodokan-ryu. In fact, as I recall, Okazaki came up with the name "Kodenkan" specifically to differentiate between his judo and Kano's.
==============

All very true, however I still never heard it called "the other judo." I'll ask around to see if anyone else has.

==============
A) Brazilian jiu-jitsu is a great system for competitions. It seriously degrades in effectiveness when weapons and multiple opponents are introduced to the scenario. This is not to say that it is *useless*, but there are other systems which focus more on weaponry and multiple opponent situations. Danzan-ryu being one of them.
==============
I agree that DZR is a little more suited to multiple attackers. But, I don't think DZR is more effective for weapons. DZR uses the weapons to teach commitment and as an introduction. If you like the weapon stuff, go learn from someone who really knows. The BJJ weapon stuff I have seen looks more like street effective weapon disarms. They are less theoretical and more straight to the point. DZR lets the attacker draw the gun and put it to your forehead, BJJ tries to stop the gun from coming out of the belt. DZR assumes a free open area, like a dojo, BJJ uses the environment more, specifically walls.

==============
D) If you think that giving up your mobility in armed combat is a wise idea, then you are simply demonstrating that you do not have enough knowledge of the subject to offer an opinion. Only two things keep ground troops alive in a firefight: killing the enemy first, and moving faster than the enemy can track and shoot. If you are wrestling on the ground trying to choke one guy unconscious, 12 other guys will shoot you--or save the bullet and stab you with their bayonets.
==============
First, a good choke only takes 3-4 seconds. With soldiers moving fast and looking to shoot fast moving people, playing dead, camoflaged by a body on top of you might not be such a bad idea. Wait till the enemy moves away, and make a break for it. If there are 12 other guys there to shoot you while you are trying to choke the guy out, then there are 12 other guys there to shoot you while you do a 360 degree flying tornado kick, or smack some guy upside his head with your shovel. I don't see a difference, either way you end up full of lead. Laying on the ground amid a bunch of other bodies just seems to draw a little less attention and thus a little less fire.

===============
E) Yes, obviously hand-to-hand combat is worst case scenario training for modern combatants. However, it is far preferable to have relevant survival skills than to have say "Well, I'm out of bullets. Guess I'm dead now." 'Cuz for servicemen, that doesn't mean another quarter in the video game (or 50 cents, I'm old); that means really dead.
================
I agree. But a full on assault when you have no bullets seems pretty foolish. Getting back to your buddies and getting more bullets might be a good idea. H2h combat is the worst case. One thing Kano proved was that if you practice against resisting opponents, you will dramatically improve your skill. From what I read, the switch to BJJ was more about trying to get the men to train harder by introducing competition. Since there are 12 guys there to shoot you anyway, does it matter if you knocked the guy out with a tornado kick, an upper cut or choked him out or even used your super secret Dim Mak touch of screaming death?

[Spartan]

...A) Brazilian jiu-jitsu is a great system for competitions. It seriously degrades in effectiveness when weapons and multiple opponents are introduced to the scenario..... I have always wondered how BJJ would fare in the back alleys of Manila, MexicoCity, Bronx, Bangkok, Bogota, Moscow etc.

[yamatodamashii]

=============
I agree that DZR is a little more suited to multiple attackers. But, I don't think DZR is more effective for weapons. DZR uses the weapons to teach commitment and as an introduction. If you like the weapon stuff, go learn from someone who really knows. The BJJ weapon stuff I have seen looks more like street effective weapon disarms. They are less theoretical and more straight to the point. DZR lets the attacker draw the gun and put it to your forehead, BJJ tries to stop the gun from coming out of the belt. DZR assumes a free open area, like a dojo, BJJ uses the environment more, specifically walls.

Personally, I don't think either choice is top-notch; my point is that BJJ is not a step up. Also, a street-effective maneuver to stop a pistol coming out of its holster isn't going to be very good against a rifle pointed at you. Much better to have practiced methods for getting out of the line of fire. Also, I wouldn't want techniques which rely on enviornmental factors I may not have available to me.
Finally, I'm not advocating attempting disarms *at all* on the battlefield. What I'm saying about weapons is, if you start rolling around on the ground with someone, you have zero reaction time to avoid avoid anything in his hands, and you can't execute the erratic stop-and-weaving movement that makes it harder to track and shoot you. You are stuck there, on the ground, until he's done.



============
First, a good choke only takes 3-4 seconds. With soldiers moving fast and looking to shoot fast moving people, playing dead, camoflaged by a body on top of you might not be such a bad idea. Wait till the enemy moves away, and make a break for it. If there are 12 other guys there to shoot you while you are trying to choke the guy out, then there are 12 other guys there to shoot you while you do a 360 degree flying tornado kick, or smack some guy upside his head with your shovel. I don't see a difference, either way you end up full of lead. Laying on the ground amid a bunch of other bodies just seems to draw a little less attention and thus a little less fire.

A good choke may only take 3-4 seconds, but acquiring a target and taking a shot only takes 2-3. You seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating hand-to-hand combat any time you run out of ammunition. Hand-to-hand training is for when you run out of ammunition and *can't* retreat. Usually, it applies in a defensive position--a sort of temporary base of operations whose only real protection is camoflage. If you are discovered, you will be attacked. If you run out of ammunition, your options are: fight with what you have (hand-to-hand) or get shot in the back trying to run away. Playing dead is not an option; the enemy will be looking for prisoners to interrogate, and they will most likely check by sticking a knife in the leg of anybody who isn't obviously dead (as in, decapitated).
Not to mention that, having signed a contract to put your life in harm's way to defend the lives of others, playing dead while your friends are being killed is a bit cowardly.
Nor at any point have I recommended "tornado kicks". Especially in full ballistic armor and combat boots. Military hand-to-hand should be more on the order of "break something, stab, move on; break something, stab, move on".


=============
I agree. But a full on assault when you have no bullets seems pretty foolish. Getting back to your buddies and getting more bullets might be a good idea. H2h combat is the worst case. One thing Kano proved was that if you practice against resisting opponents, you will dramatically improve your skill. From what I read, the switch to BJJ was more about trying to get the men to train harder by introducing competition. Since there are 12 guys there to shoot you anyway, does it matter if you knocked the guy out with a tornado kick, an upper cut or choked him out or even used your super secret Dim Mak touch of screaming death?

Once again: hand-to-hand combat is not for continuing assaults, it's for when retreat is unavailable; the competitions are not available; I've never recommended any of those "techniques", nor would any sane person with a knowledge of battlefield tactics. Disarming enemy soldiers who are overrunning your position is a ridiculous waste of effort; even the normal practice of "one casualty equals three men off the field" no longer applies, since (if they know you're out of ammo, which they'll figure out pretty quickly) they won't be retreating until YOU are dead. Also, without trying to correct your misunderstanding of pressure point techniques, even the most legendary "touches of screaming death" would actually require *touching*--which doesn't work well through modern ballistic armor.

[Cliff Hargrave]

I don't know how the course is taught in the military, but the manual does have some good basic knife work and striking in it. True the BJJ part takes up most of the space but that is probably because it takes so many pictures to demonstrate the moves.

[kodanjaclay]

It was my understanding that the BJJ was being taught at Benning to foster competitive spirit. As our cadre said, if you have to fight someone, something has gone drastically wrong.

[yamatodamashii]

Exactly so. Jeff and Tony, thanks for the information, by the way!

[Bad Karma]

I think my CO just said to heck with a training schedule and decided that we'll start our intro to combatives next week - LOL! He put the info out in our safety briefing...don't mess up and miss out on combatives...and was later seen giving the platoon sergeants a quick brief up in the day room afterwards. Our uniform will BDU's, white socks, and tennis shoes with any snivel gear optional. Hey, it's fricking cold in the morning so I'll have my polypro's on. So, Tuesday will be my first look at Combatives.

Also, the guy who trains the 1st SF Group in BJJ just invited me to come and train with them three mornings out of the week. If I can shake my company PT for that, I'll sure be there. This guy is also in my BJJ class. Dang! I join a BJJ class and then I get asked to help train a reserve unit in combatives, company combatives training, and invited to train with some SF guys...how kewl is that? LOL!

Peace

[jwinch2]

Very cool Tony, let us know how it goes.

When I was at Campbell we did some cross trianing with the 5th group guys and they were a fun bunch to be around. More serious then they appeared at first which was even better.

Have fun,

Jason

[areusafe]

HiYa Group,

Hey BadKarma,

OUTSTANDING Trooper. :)

[jackhammer]

A good choke may only take 3-4 seconds, but acquiring a target and taking a shot only takes 2-3
Where do you train? With the m9 or the sig sauer, we train to level the the gun as soon as it is drawn, so at close range (certainly combatives range) we can kill before the target is aquired. Similar techniques apply to the mp5 and m4. And, even when we do aquire, at under 50 meters 2 seconds can be all the time you have. The just about only time I have ever had or heard of anyone else having to use h2h techniques was entering a house or building, or with prisoners. Conventional forces almost never have to use combatives techniques because even in urban combat, as long as it's in the streets and not the buildings, you don't get that close. I'm not saying it can't happen, I just haven't heard anyone talk about it. The last time I had to rely on my h2h techniques was entering a building. After we breached the door I went in right with my partner behind covering and another shooter pair to my left going down their lane. As I went in, I raised my gun to shoot and it jammed. I needed to clear my lane and cover, so I had to keep going as I went for my sidearm, but as I made the switch I had to deal with a guy in the way. I hit him in the groin and throat at the same time as I basically ran him over, finished the switch, turned and covered. We had the room secured in under 5 seconds. If I had gone to the ground, a section of the room would not have been covered, as I wouldn't have been in place, and there would have been a greater possibility of casualties.


Disarms are, as Dan Inosanto put it, incidental if not accidental. One does not attempt to disarm the enemy soldier trying to kill him; one kills him first.
This is not the case when it comes to prisoners. I had a friend tell me (when we were arguing about this same issue) that he had a prisoner try to stab him with some hidden shank, and performed a standard disarm/takedown he had learned from combatives BJJ training. Prisoner handling is one situation where BJJ is useful.


While I doubt that 90% of all fights end up on the ground, I am sure that a majority do.
This is more true of one on street fights and competition than it is of military situations. In a combat situation, you usually do not have the luxury of going to the ground with an assailant, because it takes you out of the fight. Your concentration moves from group dynamics to your opponent on the ground. Even if you have no bullets, this is not a good thing. Not only can you not support your buddies by watching their backs and being alert, you can't see potential dangers to yourself. Just because your gun is out of action doesn't mean you are, or that your out of the fight. Unless your Tom Cruise in MI2 (in which case you can take out everbody yourself, gun or no gun), your still part of a team.

[Bad Karma]

Hey, Bruce! Sorry about leaving you hanging in the chat room, but my XO called regarding my NCOER (annual) and I had to help him with the bullets. I wasn't expecting the call to be from him or for the conversation to take as long as it did. The biggest problem is that we actually get along very well and end up shooting the sheet more than we should. It's pure luck that any work gets done - LOL!

Jason, who were you with at Campbell? I was with the 3-187th Rakassan during my 1st active duty enlistment from '90 - '91. When I got out, I stayed in the area over in Hopkinsville and Cadiz. I'll keep you posted as to what happens with the combatives training. I used to train in Indian Mound, TN, for Karate, Judo, Ju Jitsu and we had some 5th Group guys train with us.

Peace

[areusafe]

HiYa Group,

Hey Tony,

No problemo guy. I got in touch with the Washington NGB about offering my (M-1) Combatives workshop over in your neck of the woods. Hey isn't 1st SFG at Ft. Lewis?

If you have a POC for their combatives instructor and could PM or e-mail it to me I could probably buy you that cup of coffee sooner than later. If not that's kewull too. :D

[yamatodamashii]

Where do you train? With the m9 or the sig sauer, we train to level the the gun as soon as it is drawn, so at close range (certainly combatives range) we can kill before the target is aquired.

My apologies--I tend to think about distance shots with a rifle, but you are very correct. Things are much faster at close range. The point I was trying to make was that the 3-4 seconds it would take to make a choke (assuming that it's a viable technique with whatever armor and equipment the enemy is carrying) is too long to be in one place.




This is not the case when it comes to prisoners. I had a friend tell me (when we were arguing about this same issue) that he had a prisoner try to stab him with some hidden shank, and performed a standard disarm/takedown he had learned from combatives BJJ training. Prisoner handling is one situation where BJJ is useful.


That's true, however, I wasn't considering a prison or a prisoner-taking mission. I was considering only a final resort on a battlefield.




This is more true of one on street fights and competition than it is of military situations. In a combat situation, you usually do not have the luxury of going to the ground with an assailant, because it takes you out of the fight. Your concentration moves from group dynamics to your opponent on the ground. Even if you have no bullets, this is not a good thing. Not only can you not support your buddies by watching their backs and being alert, you can't see potential dangers to yourself. Just because your gun is out of action doesn't mean you are, or that your out of the fight. Unless your Tom Cruise in MI2 (in which case you can take out everbody yourself, gun or no gun), your still part of a team.

That was excellently said!:bow:

[jackhammer]

That was excellently said!:bow:
Thanks! :) One does one's best.