- Jun 8, 2004
- Best answers
So it's sort of similar to the armys CQC (Close-Quarters Combat)?
More or less. Originally it was developed by Grandmaster Imi Sde-or for the Israel Defense Force. And since its development it has been tweaked a bit to adapt to the needs of Civilians.Ravendust said:So it's sort of similar to the armys CQC (Close-Quarters Combat)?
I take great exception to this. Being proficient in several martial arts, and expert in a few, I can say with great certainty that ANY martial art is lethal once the practitioner learns to throw one good punch. All millitary CQC is, is a stripped down, value added material removed version of a martial art. I breifly studied SCARS (US Navy Seal CQC system, well, at least the first part.) with a freind on his insistance that it was the ultimate martial art. Granted, it is definately lethal, and it is more than adequate for what you use it for, but it is spiritually useless. It's a messy removal of art and sped up course with instructors who have no CONTROL. Can he punch at you and stop 1cm from your face? I'm sure he can. Does he? Obviously not. I could have, at ANY TIME, killed any one of my students when I was teaching, probably with embarrasingly little effort. The difference isnt' that CQC is more lethal, I simply don't have to teach the kid to suffer through combat. That being said, whatever you learn in your short stint of instruction will undoubtably be usefull, and most likely very deadly. Whatever took me 10 years or more to learn will be more refined, and I will have a MUCH deeper understanding than auto-kinematic responses.Mad AxMan said:military CQC = dont try it if you expect not to get hurt/hurt someone else. its designed to be lethal, not just self defence.