UFC fighters fighting marines in their domain (context determines all)

Brain Stann, the big guy on the left at the end, the first one to go, was a Captain of Marines, a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, combat veteran and Silver Star recipient.

I see your context and add you continued training.  He didn't do any better than the other UFC fighters, yet he has experience as a Marine, but that was 5 years ago.  He left the Corp in 2008.  He has now spent all of his time training for dueling in the cage, not warfare in the woods. 

So, you have to train at what you are going to do, and keep it up.  Otherwise the skills and needed mindset go away. 

That, and that's a pretty hard test the Marine's gave them. LOL

Chris

One thing I wonder about in the video, there are a couple times where really bad decisions are made regarding multiple opponents - willingly clinching with one opponent with another almost in reach, walking into the middle of two people, stuff that is obviously bad if you have any knowledge of multiple opponent scenarios at all.

I'm guessing at least the former Marine (and likely the others really) would know the basics of this kind of thing, even if it's just intuitively, but they didn't act on them.

I'm curious what answers people might have as to why this happens, if we assume the knowledge is there, to me it means that not just the context, but also the fighting method itself in mainstrem MMA is inseperable from it's one on one competittive context to some degree. In the video what you seem to see is MMA fighters trying to 'win' rather than survive - which I assume was the goal.

Alot of times you hear people say that "X fighting method is the best" and that you just need to 'add in' multiple opponent scenarios, weapons etc. and you're good. Part of what this video shows to me is that fighting systems can't be entirely removed from the context that created them, they are not just sets of moves and preferences. So here the desire to "win" a singular victory seems to be a handicap.

One thing on multiple opponent stuff (purely my own limited persepctive here of course)..in the drilling of these scenarios i've played with, the very last thing you want to do is 'stand and fight', in fact that's the very thing you need to avoid, the second you willingly focus on one person things often go south. Funnily enough, this is exactly what you need to do in pretty much any combat sport - the times I have had my class play with multiple opponent stuff, we were all suprised by our desire to 'stand and fight', and how pretty much every time it worked out terribly for us!

Thoughts?

clouviere wrote:

Brain Stann, the big guy on the left at the end, the first one to go, was a Captain of Marines, a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, combat veteran and Silver Star recipient.

Didn't realize that. Looks like I've got a new favorite fighter.

Beat Army!

- Mike (USNA '96)

Zach Zinn wrote:

the times I have had my class play with multiple opponent stuff, we were all suprised by our desire to 'stand and fight', and how pretty much every time it worked out terribly for us!

Thoughts?

Ditto for me. I do pretty well when I'm just striking, but once I get a hold of a guy, I mentally shift into "grapple" mode. I stop hitting and start wrestling. This worked very, very poorly when training with Rory Miller a few weeks ago.

I think you have to shift the default training scenario to "there are always multiple opponents" rather than only doing it sometimes.

-Mike

Yes Mike, he's a Navy Academy grad.  And no, GO ARMY, BEAT NAVY!!! 

What's also missing here is that what you are seeing is one test out of a complete program.  I hate saying this, because I am very, very pro Army, but the Marine's have a great program in MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program).  It's probably as close to a total MA program for warriors that is possible.  No offense to the Army, but they bought the Gracie program at the cost of reality.  Nothing fancy about MCMAP.  It's about combat.  Survival.  Killing.  Which is afar from dueling in a cage as you can get.

You can hear it in what the young Marine says about atleast kill one, so your buddy coming behind you has one less target.  That's it it in a nutshell.  That's the difference.  They want aggression.  Attacking.  Killing.  Not "winning".  Winning isn't the same as Vicotry.  You and your team getting off the battlefield alive and getting the mission complete is the point.  It's not about you, it's about the team.  And once again, I don't think any one does that better than US Marines.  And maybe certain units within the Army.

Their MCMAP program builds no nonsense combatives.  No rolling around on the ground.  Just straing in your face, anything goes augmented and unaugmented combatives.

I don't think that anyone who trains to 'duel" will ever do well in an environment where survival, mission objectives and killing is the goal. 

Chris (US Army Airborne)

Michael Hough wrote:

I think you have to shift the default training scenario to "there are always multiple opponents" rather than only doing it sometimes.

Absolutely. Those who are familiar with my two-person bunkai drills will know that most end with an escape and a default check for the other enemies. It’s important to underline that very likely possibility even in two-person training. We also do a lot of multiple enemy “sparring” and drills. It does not take people long to realise that one-on-one thinking and tactics don’t work well, and that escaping is the most likely way to ensure a “win”.

All the best,

Iain

This might be of interest, its about ground grappling on the battlefield and in the ring: http://michaelrosnbaum.blogspot.com/2012/03/ground-grappling-on-battlefield.html

The article covers some of what's seen in the video.

Enjoy!

Mike

Trying to decide whether to point out how good our Royal Marines and Paras are ( they would say THE best!) lol! MMA has caught on with the military over here as a sport, not as military training but a sport. We have several soldiers and Royal Marines who fight, pro rules MMA, one Royal, Martin Stapleton was on TUF.

The 'unarmed' combat part of military training here isn't MMA or martial arts as it's taught to civilians. The idea being to kill people as quickly and quietly as possible, something that would make spectators want their money back if tried in MMA comps.

The 'unarmed combat' part of military has in fact evolved now to be 'arrest and restraint' training suitable for Afghanistan, there's also the weight of kit carried up to 120lbs to be considered as it makes it diffiuclt to kick, punch, throw etc!

MMA is a great sport, and make no mistake it's a sport, for the military it's good for fitness, aggression, letting off steam, discpline, etc etc but it's not a replacement for any sort of military training.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

This might be of interest, its about ground grappling on the battlefield and in the ring: http://michaelrosnbaum.blogspot.com/2012/03/ground-grappling-on-battlefield.html

A very intresting article! Thanks for sharing.

Thanks Mike.

There's been some really good posts, but just to add a little more.

It's been my experience we use the term martial art as a one size fits all phrase, when actually its far from the truth. Prior to becoming a paratrooper I had trained in karate for three years, fought full contact and had some street experience. However, after entering the military I found that my karate worked best in the NCO club, not in the field. Why? Well as Tez pointed out, its almost impossible to kick and punch ala karate style while on broken terrain and  wearing combat gear, not to mention maintaining controll of your weapon. In the street you're advised to run, but on the battlefield you're parrt of a unit and there's no such thing as running away. In battle you stay and fight with your friends, no matter how bad the situation becomes. Unit cohesion is of the upmost importance for survival on the battlefield and the engagement range is usually determined by the weapons used, not the style of karate you've practiced.

Battlefield = Deadly force asa primary means.  Civil self-defense = avoidence first, escaping next and lethal force as the very last thing. 

Battlefield fighting revolves around the group, tribe or unit.  Civil fighting is based largely in the individual.

Battlefield=weapons as the primary means.  Civil fighting/self defense usually excludes weapons because of legal restraints.  Unless of course you live in the states :)

Mike