T Nation

The Tactical Life

I think he is being sued. I read somwhere that it was also a set up to give him a reason to punch the guy. It can’t be coincidence that it was being recorded.

I’m not sure about many of the details, but I can assure you that people recording drunk idiots at bars is extremely common.

Setup or not, he’s a trained fighter who ought to know better. I don’t see that any different than rolling with a child and hitting them with a full force seio nage or a full pressure stack pass.

Zero self control, zero excuse, you’re just an asshole at that point.

BJJ is actually derived from judo. Most BJJ schools, particularly those that focus on the self defensive aspects will employ a bit of judo

But judo in itself has a far superior stand up game and a lackluster game on the ground.

He also hit first for what appears to be no good reason, might be liable to legal prosecution.

It depends on the coach, it depends on the school, it depends on the training methods and it depends on the student.

There was a judo club in my area taught by a judo black belt who was not able to reliably throw anyone in sparring.

She competed and won in a kata-only judo competition. She ran a judo school charging money to people to learn judo from her. I’m not saying that’s fraud, but I am saying that judokas should have the ability to do the thing. If you’re not sparring it is more akin to aikido.

My instructor has never trained judo as a sport but can give judo purists fits. His instructor was a judo black belt before a bjj blackbelt, which is why I use Japanese terms. Our stand up standards are not the same as a competition judo school, but they are high. You must be able to do the thing.

Like all martial arts and fitness for profit enterprises, buyer beware.

Is this right? I could have sworn that both judo and BJJ are derivatives of the original Japanese jiu jitsu. As a practitioner, I’ve never gotten into nerding out over history and lineages and such so I could have it wrong, but that sounds backwards to me.

My bad, you are correct.

You’re actually both somewhat correct. I’m no historian but I’ve read up on this subject and here’s what I remember.

Judo arose in 19th century Japan. During this time all traditional martial arts were being actively purged to rid Japan of the cultural legacies of tge Tokugawa shogunate and become an industrialized great power.

A man named Kano recognized that the knowledge of hand to hand combat was in danger of being lost forever as modern warfare eliminated the need.

Kano developed judo by assembling traditional ju jutsu practitioners and refining it all into a set of techniques.

Perhaps most importantly, they discarded techniques considered “too deadly to train”, instead focusing their training and sparring on effective techniques that can be trained at full force with full resistance.

Judo was born, and it was not a sport just yet. It was hand to hand combat.

Kanos student Maeda traveled to Brazil to spread judo and trained the first Gracies. They continued developing and refining it as a combative art, eventually exporting it around the world through vale tudo competitions like the original UFC, which put it on the map in the USA.

Meanwhile judo became an Olympic sport with lots of rules that shape training priorities, edging away from a pure combative art.

BJJ has been undergoing that transformation as well, shifting training priorities to competition and away from combat.

I imagine the BJJ I’ve learned and how old school” guys like Chad Lyman teach is much closer to Judo as it existed over 100 years ago.

In simple terms, train whatever works and isn’t too deadly to train.

BJJ is absolutely a judo knock-off and clever rebranding, but they also put in the work down in Brazil to fly their own martial arts flag of bjj.

Now we have some schools that fly a BJJ flag full of people who are not really training for violence. They call themselves BJJ precisely because of its savage reputation, but no savagery is to be found inside those doors.

1 Like

Didn’t Israel already try this, with horrible consequences? I sure don’t claim to be a professional soldier (or an amateur one for that matter), but my understanding is that unit cohesiveness is the single most important thing in keeping a combat unit together when things get really ugly (by “really ugly” I mean not just “Gee, I’m really tired,” but seeing your buddies’ guts and brains get splattered about). Back when the issue of gays in the military was being discussed, there were some who opposed it not out of any animus toward gay people or any suggestion that gay men aren’t “manly” enough, but because introducing any potential for sexual desire or romance into a combat unit threatened the necessary cohesiveness. Those voices were quickly stigmatized as “homophobic” and disregarded. The same has happened with the issue of women in combat. I hope we don’t end up paying a horrible price for this progressive experiment.

And the same (or similar) response has come out every time the sex/cultural issue is mentioned.

  • Young alpha males are going to try and fuck fit/good looking chicks, or assume a ‘protector’ role (big brother).
  • Team rooms are like locker rooms: a lot of shit is said and done in there that you wouldn’t want in polite company. Throw a female into that mix and you are asking for trouble in one form or another.

Response: ‘Well maybe they should stop being frat boys and grow the hell up. That kind of behavior is abhorrent and does nothing for anyone, so stop it anyway. Men and women can work together and not fuck each other. Etc, etc.’

There’s two worlds here, the way things should be (or the way we want them to be), and the way things are. Anything other than looking at the way things are is inviting trouble, either willingly or through sheer negligence. And expecting alpha males to go through what is necessary to get into and conduct these types of jobs, but then expect them to be prim and proper is idiocy of the highest order.

Then look at the small number of other females who have gotten their toes in the door:

  • SF chick discharged her firearm inside her apartment, thankfully no one was injured or killed. (verifiable, google it)

  • Ranger O chick was fired from her position as PL (probably can’t find that in the news anywhere, but I personally had that verified by a former Ranger friend of mine.

  • Recon chick was assigned to an S shop rather than an operational team (rumor currently for me at least, when I return to work I can probably get verification on that one)

Still a couple chicks in the NSW pipeline, one completing MFF which is her last school in the SF pipeline, and I believe another in the AFSOC pipeline (Special Warfare, pretty sure that used to be Combat Weather). Regiment called it a few years ago: the number of women making it through SOF selection courses will be so small, the units will be forced to spend large amounts of money for female locker rooms (unless their going to leave them in the support locker rooms, to which I guarantee some women will raise hell) for what will amount to maybe 1 or 2 per year.

Experience tells me you’re right. However, I’m an optimist. So what I’m hoping will happen is that we go full Starship Troopers, combat effectiveness goes up by multiples, and the joke will be on all of us fools.

Gays have served in militaries for thousands of years. The Sacred Band was made up of gay partners who defeated the Spartans. Women on the other hand, as a group, don’t have a track record of success. The Dahomey Amazons had a reputation for being ruthlessly effective but that was until they tasted the bayonets of the French Foreign Legion.

A big reason to not want women in combat is that they probably won’t be able to carry a wounded comrade out of danger.

My opinion regarding women in combat

I’m not a soldier, nor do I know much about the military

For combat/front line roles, if a woman can meet the criteria regarding physical prowess, why not. The caveat is, the criteria can’t be dumbed down.

This is front line combat we speak of, feelings don’t care about facts and men are biologically stronger than women. The people shooting at you in some dusty village don’t care about your gender. Some women are tough as hell, women compete in combat sports. It’s not impossible; it’s just not likely.

I knew somebody would say something like this pretty quickly. And of course it’s true. And again, the issue is not whether gay men have the toughness or wherewithal to be soldiers; doubtless many do, and I infer nothing about a man’s toughness in combat (or in life in general) from his sexual orientation. I go back to the issue of what keeps a soldier pressing on under the most horrific circumstances imaginable, when any sane person would run away screaming in horror. My understanding is that it’s the unique bond between men in combat. I’ve read several accounts that state that when things are at their worst, nobody is thinking about the United States Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or George Washington crossing the Delaware or even family back home; rather, what keeps them fighting is the guy to the left and the guy to the right, because the bond with those fellow soldiers is so powerful. The concern I’m raising here is whether implementing socially progressive measures in the military threatens that bond. If it does, where does that put us? What does it mean in terms of the lives of troops in combat? I don’t know the answer, but I do feel like these questions got swept under the rug over the past few years, and that the voices of men with real and awful combat experience were ignored during the discussion.

I don’t think that when your life is on the line you also think about who the guy on your right sleeps with. I understand that there are people who may have certain negative ideas about gays based on how they were raised but that could also apply to race as well. One of the things you learn in the military is that you need to be able to work with everybody.


I assume that physical standards don’t get compromised for women in combat arms so I don’t stress too much about this point. Also, I came across plenty of weak mother fuckers in the infantry whose ability to carry me with gear was highly suspect. All in favor of a higher physical standard overall, though.

While I know there have been plenty of examples of this in history, I think this is all a big hypothetical for all of us on this thread. For example, I know from experience how my Marines acted around females from other units and I have anecdotes of how females from logistics units performed in firefights. We can all draw conclusions from those types of experiences but it doesn’t really mimic the scenario in which men and women train together in the shoot/move/communicate disciplines, deploy together, etc. Anyone actually witnessed a fully-integrated unit in combat?

This is not at all what I was getting at; I have no negative ideas about gays, period. My point (actually the point of veterans who have made this argument) is that any potential romantic or sexual tension in an outfit would undermine the cohesiveness. This same concern also suggests extreme caution about having women in combat units.

I think that from a statistical standpoint, the chances you would have two gay soldiers in say, a platoon, is small. Then, even if you had two gay men in the same platoon, it doesn’t mean they will be attracted to each other just because they are both gay.

It would be the job of leadership to deal with any issues that affect combat effectiveness. But I think this discussion is not the what this thread was intended for.

Thought for the day:

Something that came up yesterday. I assume that most people who glance at this thread have a working knowledge of martial arts. After spending some time training, you begin to separate true knowledge from bullshit. When an instructor is demonstrating true knowledge backed by practical advise, don’t be the asshole who knows it all, if you were that great, you would be doing the teaching.

He is a smart, experienced and logical Recondo. When he says “Hey man, what do you think about ” . Its time to be the guy with big ears and little mouth.

When those you work with and around speak, it’s a chance to learn. Others have insight that you do not or a perspective that is unique.

Listen, respect their opinion and then take what is useful.

@twojarslave : Just for you, brother

I have seized a lot of drugs in my career, but, never found any in a marble cake:)))

Cocaine disguised as cake seized from vehicle in Maine

1 Like

Funny you mention that. One of the states best BJJ black belts had his birthday yesterday.

He shared the same article on Facebook, declaring his birthday party canceled.

In all seriousness, this probably put a real damper on the weekend plans for dive bar customers across the entire state. The weekend was going to be totally lit, but now there’s not enough cocaine for that.

1 Like

Everyone knows that eating marble cake will get you stoned…

1 Like