Special Forces Ultimate Hell Week - Winner's Comments

[Guest eight]

Apparently the best way to win a fight is maximum violence right from the off. None of this Marquess of Queensbury, squaring up waffle.

I have a mate who did a few professional heavyweight bouts and I was amazed to learn that you can build up a resistance to being hit, by being hit. It doesn't make any sense. Mind you neither does he.

[ccc]

Apparently the best way to win a fight is maximum violence right from the off. None of this Marquess of Queensbury, squaring up waffle.

I have a mate who did a few professional heavyweight bouts and I was amazed to learn that you can build up a resistance to being hit, by being hit. It doesn't make any sense. Mind you neither does he.

Does sound like a plan - if I ever find myself in a situation like that I shall give it a go and see what happens !!

Last 2 times I have been hit - once in the boozer and once in the street - the blokes literally ran off straight away !! ******* - I dint even get a chance to get stuck in.

Learning to get hit in the face is definately a 'skill' that will help massively in any dodgy situation. If you're not used to it - I find I literally froze in almost shock for a second or two. Long enough for them to smack you again a few times - or worse - if they felt like it.

Then again - I dont really fancy the 'learning' of being hit in the face - so I shall take my chances as is.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Apparently the best way to win a fight is maximum violence right from the off. None of this Marquess of Queensbury, squaring up waffle.

I have a mate who did a few professional heavyweight bouts and I was amazed to learn that you can build up a resistance to being hit, by being hit. It doesn't make any sense. Mind you neither does he.

^^^^ This.

You've got to make a decision and stick to it. Then a few well practised take down moves.

The idea that the SAS would be some kind of pushover is laughable. They are trained a) to recognise when someone is going to fight, to go in with maximum aggression when they do, c) they probably have simple well practised take down moves d) they are physically fit and strong from probably a massive aerobic and weights program which is necessary to run around carrying guns and e) they probably practice all this stuff on a regular basis.

If you read Andy McNabs book some of the guys were supposedly well into the hand to hand combat, so much so that they were national martial arts champions, or close to being so.

[Goat]

If you read Andy McNabs book some of the guys were supposedly well into the hand to hand combat, so much so that they were national martial arts champions, or close to being so.

Good point, even if hand to hand isn't part of their training (and I suspect it is) it's the kind of thing they're going to practice in their own time.

[ccc]

^^^^ This.

You've got to make a decision and stick to it. Then a few well practised take down moves.

The idea that the SAS would be some kind of pushover is laughable. They are trained a) to recognise when someone is going to fight, to go in with maximum aggression when they do, c) they probably have simple well practised take down moves d) they are physically fit and strong from probably a massive aerobic and weights program which is necessary to run around carrying guns and e) they probably practice all this stuff on a regular basis.

If you read Andy McNabs book some of the guys were supposedly well into the hand to hand combat, so much so that they were national martial arts champions, or close to being so.

I never said they would be a 'pushover'. I said if they were ever in a fight with someone who trained for fighting - or had done it all their life - they would more than likely get launched. Simple common sense.

And yes I am sure some guys in the SAS are into hand to hand combat - so are some people that work in Tescos. It doesnt mean you can assume every bloke in Tescos will have you on the ground begging for mercy if you decide to cause them bother.

[Frank Hovis]

I used to do some martial arts (emphasis on the used to, I'd be useless these days) and my mate even has his own school for it so I know a bit about it.

In my humble opinion the best unarmed fighter bar none is the boxer. Speed, power, combinations, ability to take a punch. They will always win it.

Armed combat I'd guess special forces - a very different skill that few us have even tried.

I kknow a couple of people very into Aikido. It's clearly fun but the ritualized nature of it means it's a sport rather than self-defence. Other then to the extent it makes you fitter and stronger.

[ccc]

I used to do some martial arts (emphasis on the used to, I'd be useless these days) and my mate even has his own school for it so I know a bit about it.

In my humble opinion the best unarmed fighter bar none is the boxer. Speed, power, combinations, ability to take a punch. They will always win it.

Armed combat I'd guess special forces - a very different skill that few us have even tried.

I kknow a couple of people very into Aikido. It's clearly fun but the ritualized nature of it means it's a sport rather than self-defence. Other then to the extent it makes you fitter and stronger.

Yes agreed on a boxer - unless they come up against someone who does a variety of disciplines and can wrestle/grapple - then they would be ******ed too.

As for the military - hand to hand combat has almost zero use in active service. Hence why wasting hours and hours on it every week - when you could be spending it learning more about explosives or weapons training - is rather stupid.

The Russians probably do it because of their general obvious over the top male bravado attitude. Us British are a little smarter than that. Hence why are they often regarded as the best on the planet.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

I used to do some martial arts (emphasis on the used to, I'd be useless these days) and my mate even has his own school for it so I know a bit about it.

In my humble opinion the best unarmed fighter bar none is the boxer. Speed, power, combinations, ability to take a punch. They will always win it.

Armed combat I'd guess special forces - a very different skill that few us have even tried.

I kknow a couple of people very into Aikido. It's clearly fun but the ritualized nature of it means it's a sport rather than self-defence. Other then to the extent it makes you fitter and stronger.

Spent quite a bit of time doing karate. If its going to be useful in self defence you really have to be into free fighting. There is a lot of emphasis on drills, kata, that's the art. You can rise up through the belts doing that and get pretty high up, but its not that useful in a real fight unless you actually practice using it in free fighting situations such as tournaments. Our club used to have three practice sessions, two for the art and one for the free fighting. The art improves your flexibility, form and reactions. The free fighting is the practical as opposed to the theory Some people will do the free fighting, and some won't, as not unsuprisngly some people don't like getting their face smashed in. You can rise up quite high in the ranks having all the theory, but zero practical, as the progress is judged on the theory.

Martial arts differ a lot in their practical applicability. After some observation I came to the conclusion that ju jitsu is probably the best for practical self defence because you practise real life takedowns on a regular basis. Boxing is no good if someone comes at you with a knife or broken bottle. I don't believe there is such thing as the best disciple. Boxers may have powerful punches, but how good are they with the gloves off or if someone comes at you with a knife ? Karate teaches you how to strike with power, but if you spend all the time learning the art and not practising getting hit/hitting, then it is useless. My guess is the best form of self defence/attack takes elements of all of these things. You want the endurance of a boxer, but the ability to strike with power like a karate expert without gloves on and breaking your fist. You want the skill of ju jitsui to be able to control an attacker that comes at you with a broken bottle or knife.

[ccc]

Just googled - they are still separate - but now come under an overall 'Special forces' groupin' including SAS,SBS, SRR and SFSG.

Seems the forces are just as bad as Banks when it comes to regular 'restructures'.

[ccc]

Spent quite a bit of time doing karate. If its going to be useful in self defence you really have to be into free fighting. There is a lot of emphasis on drills, kata, that's the art. You can rise up through the belts doing that and get pretty high up, but its not that useful in a real fight unless you actually practice using it in free fighting situations such as tournaments. Our club used to have three practice sessions, two for the art and one for the free fighting. The art improves your flexibility, form and reactions. The free fighting is the practical as opposed to the theory Some people will do the free fighting, and some won't, as not unsuprisngly some people don't like getting their face smashed in. You can rise up quite high in the ranks having all the theory, but zero practical, as the progress is judged on the theory.

Martial arts differ a lot in their practical applicability. After some observation I came to the conclusion that ju jitsu is probably the best for practical self defence because you practise real life takedowns on a regular basis. Boxing is no good if someone comes at you with a knife or broken bottle. I don't believe there is such thing as the best disciple. Boxers may have powerful punches, but how good are they with the gloves off or if someone comes at you with a knife ? Karate teaches you how to strike with power, but if you spend all the time learning the art and not practising getting hit/hitting, then it is useless. My guess is the best form of self defence/attack takes elements of all of these things. You want the endurance of a boxer, but the ability to strike with power like a karate expert without gloves on and breaking your fist. You want the skill of ju jitsui to be able to control an attacker that comes at you with a broken bottle or knife.

Or to put it simply - you want a gun - Job done.

[Frank Hovis]

Spent quite a bit of time doing karate. If its going to be useful in self defence you really have to be into free fighting. There is a lot of emphasis on drills, kata, that's the art. You can rise up through the belts doing that and get pretty high up, but its not that useful in a real fight unless you actually practice using it in free fighting situations such as tournaments. Our club used to have three practice sessions, two for the art and one for the free fighting. The art improves your flexibility, form and reactions. The free fighting is the practical as opposed to the theory Some people will do the free fighting, and some won't, as not unsuprisngly some people don't like getting their face smashed in. You can rise up quite high in the ranks having all the theory, but zero practical, as the progress is judged on the theory.

Martial arts differ a lot in their practical applicability. After some observation I came to the conclusion that ju jitsu is probably the best for practical self defence because you practise real life takedowns on a regular basis. Boxing is no good if someone comes at you with a knife or broken bottle. I don't believe there is such thing as the best disciple. Boxers may have powerful punches, but how good are they with the gloves off or if someone comes at you with a knife ? Karate teaches you how to strike with power, but if you spend all the time learning the art and not practising getting hit/hitting, then it is useless. My guess is the best form of self defence/attack takes elements of all of these things. You want the endurance of a boxer, but the ability to strike with power like a karate expert without gloves on and breaking your fist. You want the skill of ju jitsui to be able to control an attacker that comes at you with a broken bottle or knife.

Hence why I qualified it as boxers being the best for unarmed combat; I've not done it as I don't fancy being hit in the face regularly of an evening. From my viewpoint martial arts is a fun hobby and I'm considering taking it up again, but I don't think it gives me much edge in a proper street fight. Nobody's going to just stand there whilst I execute a perfect butterfly kick. The best way of dealing with street fights is not getting into them in the first place.

I don't know about armed combat, all differs doesn't it. Defending yourself against somebody coming at you with a knife is very different to somebody swinging a pool cue at you. In those situations I'd be grabbing a weapon myself and my approach would be very unscientific.

[ccc]

Actually I think the show that is the original subject of this thread - did have them doing some hand to hand combat as part of one of their tests ?

I remember at least one of them had to leave the show as they got badly injured doing it. Doh !

[Hail the Tripod]

Spent quite a bit of time doing karate. If its going to be useful in self defence you really have to be into free fighting. There is a lot of emphasis on drills, kata, that's the art. You can rise up through the belts doing that and get pretty high up, but its not that useful in a real fight unless you actually practice using it in free fighting situations such as tournaments. Our club used to have three practice sessions, two for the art and one for the free fighting. The art improves your flexibility, form and reactions. The free fighting is the practical as opposed to the theory Some people will do the free fighting, and some won't, as not unsuprisngly some people don't like getting their face smashed in. You can rise up quite high in the ranks having all the theory, but zero practical, as the progress is judged on the theory.

Martial arts differ a lot in their practical applicability. After some observation I came to the conclusion that ju jitsu is probably the best for practical self defence because you practise real life takedowns on a regular basis. Boxing is no good if someone comes at you with a knife or broken bottle. I don't believe there is such thing as the best disciple. Boxers may have powerful punches, but how good are they with the gloves off or if someone comes at you with a knife ? Karate teaches you how to strike with power, but if you spend all the time learning the art and not practising getting hit/hitting, then it is useless. My guess is the best form of self defence/attack takes elements of all of these things. You want the endurance of a boxer, but the ability to strike with power like a karate expert without gloves on and breaking your fist. You want the skill of ju jitsui to be able to control an attacker that comes at you with a broken bottle or knife.

When UFC started with open fights between all martial arts disciplines the Judo champs were crushing the strike style people. Defend, defend, get in close, clinch, then submission move.

[ccc]

I googled SAS hand to hand combat - and this article was the first up. Interesting stuff - and the bloke certainly appears to know what he is talking about.

http://www.wimsblog.com/2013/03/the-myth-of-military-hand-to-hand-combat-systems/

[ccc]

When UFC started with open fights between all martial arts disciplines the Judo champs were crushing the strike style people. Defend, defend, get in close, clinch, then submission move.

Yes its pretty well accepted that wrestling/grappling beats all else - most of the time.

However if you're not in a ring - this will probably involve you being on the floor - not a great situation if the bloke you are choking has a pal with a size 12 boot heading for your face at speed.

[SNACR]

This thread feels like being in a barbers, in the nineties, reading a copy of FHM.

In a fight between a gorilla and a tiger who would win?

[Errol]

I used to do some martial arts (emphasis on the used to, I'd be useless these days) and my mate even has his own school for it so I know a bit about it.

In my humble opinion the best unarmed fighter bar none is the boxer. Speed, power, combinations, ability to take a punch. They will always win it.

Armed combat I'd guess special forces - a very different skill that few us have even tried.

I kknow a couple of people very into Aikido. It's clearly fun but the ritualized nature of it means it's a sport rather than self-defence. Other then to the extent it makes you fitter and stronger.

Krav Maga is good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krav_Maga

[Errol]

As for the military - hand to hand combat has almost zero use in active service.

It really doesn't.

For the special forces, hand to hand combat is a routine part of many missions.

In Afghanistan, for instance, special forces had to fight the Taiban in their caves at some points - in body-to-body proximity, hand to hand.

In Israel, soldiers are taught Krav Maga as a matter of routine, as much of their work involves operating in confined spaces (narrow streets, house to house etc). In these situations you often don't have time to bring your gun to bear and simply have to react, hand to hand, to defend yourself and incapacitate the enemy.

Hand to hand combat is still vital. And yes, the Russians are particularly good at it (which is why you wouldn't want to run into a Spetsnaz unit on a dark night).

[Frank Hovis]

The correct answer is always Chuck Norris. Always

I think the whole conflation of Special Forces and Martial Arts is a weird myth that got propagated by 80s action films. That notwithstanding, Special Forces soldiers are likely to do more damage in a fight than your average teddybear.

The key factor isn't technique, or training, it's intent and willingness to engage. That's why no one picks a fight with the local nutter...he's quite happy to cause you serious damage..as opposed to most blokes (or women) who just want to strut around a bit and look good.

P

I have heard that the one thing that makes a successful (define that how you will) street fighter is more the willingness to suffer damage themselves. The local nutter has probably been knifed or glassed several times already so somebody coming at them with a smashed bottle won't phase them as it would most people.

[frozen_out]

The correct answer is always Chuck Norris. Always

I think the whole conflation of Special Forces and Martial Arts is a weird myth that got propagated by 80s action films. That notwithstanding, Special Forces soldiers are likely to do more damage in a fight than your average teddybear.

The key factor isn't technique, or training, it's intent and willingness to engage. That's why no one picks a fight with the local nutter...he's quite happy to cause you serious damage..as opposed to most blokes (or women) who just want to strut around a bit and look good.

P

That's what I was talking about with regards to the training - picking a fight with a man who is to all intents and purposes a professional murderer can't be a good idea, whether he's had training in hand to hand combat or not.

Ditto the boxer, picking a fight with a man who gets punched in the face either as a profession or hobby is unlikely to end well. Particularly the professional end, few people understand just how hard you have to be to be a pro boxer. Enzo Macarinelli only ever really made it to a little above domestic level and he used to go and pick fights with bouncers for fun when he was in his teens.

[Guest eight]

This thread feels like being in a barbers, in the nineties, reading a copy of FHM.

In that case its missing a picture of Gail Porter's tits.

Edit: You'll have to make do with Kochanski off Red Dwarf instead.

[ccc]

The correct answer is always Chuck Norris. Always

I think the whole conflation of Special Forces and Martial Arts is a weird myth that got propagated by 80s action films. That notwithstanding, Special Forces soldiers are likely to do more damage in a fight than your average teddybear.

The key factor isn't technique, or training, it's intent and willingness to engage. That's why no one picks a fight with the local nutter...he's quite happy to cause you serious damage..as opposed to most blokes (or women) who just want to strut around a bit and look good.

P

Totally disagree.

That's like saying someone who has been to the driving range a few times can beat a golf pro just because they have the desire and willingness to give it a go.

[ccc]

It really doesn't.

For the special forces, hand to hand combat is a routine part of many missions.

In Afghanistan, for instance, special forces had to fight the Taiban in their caves at some points - in body-to-body proximity, hand to hand.

In Israel, soldiers are taught Krav Maga as a matter of routine, as much of their work involves operating in confined spaces (narrow streets, house to house etc). In these situations you often don't have time to bring your gun to bear and simply have to react, hand to hand, to defend yourself and incapacitate the enemy.

Hand to hand combat is still vital. And yes, the Russians are particularly good at it (which is why you wouldn't want to run into a Spetsnaz unit on a dark night).

Hand to hand combat is a routine part of many special forces missions ? You really believe that ?!

Any 'special' force who has to use it on a regular basis must be absolutely terrible.

They are in confined spaces and don't have time to use their weapons ? What the ****** do you think they are holding in front of them when going around a corner or breaking through a door ? A Mars bar ? Maybe a banana ? Come on - think about it !!

You reckon they launch their rifle to the side in order to have a go 'hand to hand' ?

There may be the odd very rare occasion where someone is taken out quietly with a knife for example - but its hardly going to be fisticuffs !! And its never going to be chosen ahead of using a round - unless there is absolutely no choice. Much more chance of it all going wrong - however much training you do.

I think you have been watching too much Jason Bourne

[ccc]

picking a fight with a man who is to all intents and purposes a professional murderer can't be a good idea, whether he's had training in hand to hand combat or not.

Rose West was a professional murderer - in fact even worse - she did it for fun. However I doubt she was too handy in a brawl down the local boozer.

Someone who is a coldhearted army killer trained to kill with a rifle - could also be totally useless at having a fist fight with someone. That's pretty obvious.

Totally agree about your boxer comment though. And I have personal experience of that !!

[Turned Out Nice Again]