Kendo Confusion

Mordekaien

New member
Sep 3, 2010
820
0
0
demoman_chaos said:
I greatly prefer that. The longsword does have a lot of moves that I am unsure if were ever used in the east, like half sword and using the pommel to strike.
The pommel was used, albeit a little differently than in western styles. Usually it was meant to distance yourself from opponent, so that you could cut him down then.
What do you mean by half sword?

(also, keep in mind that most of modern techniques are done against unarmored opponents, since katana was rarely used as a weapon en masse, japanese preferred spears and guns/ spears and bows as their main type of weapons in wars, while sword fighting was used mostly in towns. The older swords from Japan- that were meant to cut a man in armor, look more closely to european longswords, than most katanas)
 

CaptainMarvelous

New member
May 9, 2012
869
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
MMA fighters put a huge emphasis on the ground game based on the way the rules of their sports work out, but in reality, you never, ever want to get on the ground if you can avoid it.
OK, this is more a side-note, but if it's 1 on 1 you absolutely DO want to take it to the ground if you're trained and they aren't. The problem is when you're fighting more than one person if it's one guy alone in an alley then yes, take him to the ground and save yourself a LOT of trouble by putting him in a choke-hold and cutting off the blood supply to the brain. If he has anyone nearby to help him then you're probably going to get nailed while on the ground, it's very much a contextual thing.

Sorry, but just mentioning that, MMA guys don't go to the ground because it works for their sport they go to the ground because 1 on 1 it's a very good position to be in. I don't like doing the whole 'talking about martial arts experience' over the internet but just throwing in my two cents for that one.

Captcha: Laser Beams, well that would work too
 

cerebus23

New member
May 16, 2010
1,275
0
0
kendo is far removed from actual combat, most martial arts these days are since they do not want people walking around and killing people with their bare hands. modern day has sought to take the martial out of martial arts for decades.

There were only a handful of "authentic" schools around that taught traditional samurai fighting, when i looked into it a number of years ago. In places like cali, n.y. etc.

I do not watch kendo i rather watch ikaido demonstrations especially ones by the old school masters which gleam alot of information about how actual samurai fought, and how key foot, waist movement and balance are in those forms. Some of them even show sword techniques those are always interesting.

But i have real doubts if you can learn anything at all useful out of kendo itself is is far too stylized, far too limited, at lest in the respect of trying to understand real traditional samurai forms and fighting.

and in a real fight you not only have your sword but your hands, feet, knees, companion sword, throwing knives, all things samurai would have used to their fullest, there was no fair play in life or death combat, it simply was live or die.
 

Calibanbutcher

New member
Nov 29, 2009
1,691
0
0
I have only some basic experience with the katana, due to getting some training at my karate dojo, and I can safely say that we did a lot more with the stick than what is shown in that video. We went for the legs, the arms, the head, the groin, basically every part of the body we could reach and we learnt highly effective defensive maneuvers as well, which whilst not being aestethically pleasing really got the job done.
Based on that, I would say that Kendo is a highly stylised version of the original version of japanese swordfighting, based on rigid perfectionist ideals.
 

InsipidMadness

New member
Mar 26, 2010
134
0
0
To my understanding of the competitive sport. The kendo video appears to be a neutral spot in the hugging range as if it's a standoff or like a clinch in boxing. It prevents either side from making an offensive while keeping yourself in a defense. Killing blows aside, in the sport, I believe points are made elsewhere. I think to get the point in kendo you have to land a strike on the opponents head. And to get that point, it has to be a full body strike, and at that close of a range, nothing else can be done. Kendo is also kendo, not katana killing, so it is meant to be practiced with the bamboo sticks, thus the only way damage would be done, is having a full strike hit the body, head being the full point. Thus that standoff is sort of a game of chicken, or from the looks of it, or a reset until they distance off again. Seems the first one to back is at threat of the other one striking, so it is a competition of aggression.

This is all speculation however, but those are my two cents. (read a few comments above me, makes sense that only certain areas would net points due to the armor against the blade if it's meant to represent a real katana)
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,410
0
0
Having merely watched a kendo class, and not participated, it appeared that kendo was as much about discipline and athletics as it was about swordfighting.
 

Quijiboh

New member
Mar 24, 2011
97
0
0
From my background as a Taekwondo practitioner, what I saw in the Kendo video is very familiar to me. The sport side of things has evolved to the point of being nigh unrecognisable compared to the original martial art.

Competitive Taekwondo, as you might have seen in the Olympics, uses a much more restricted set of techniques and a style that would be largely useless in an actual fight. This is compounded by having some very prejudiced judges who only want to reward certain styles. For example, there were about a bajillion clear punches (which are legal to the chest) this Olympics that weren't counted because the judges don't like them. It was also only the calamitous showing in Beijing that forced the WTF to open up to allowing pushing kicks to score points this time around too.

As such, Taekwondo the sport has only superficial baring on Taekwondo the martial art, which is much more well rounded in its approach to fighting.

EDIT: I'm not necessarily saying that this is a bad thing. Just that you shouldn't equate like for like.
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
CaptainMarvelous said:
I've actually done Kendo, Kenjutsu and European style sword fighting stuff and it's kind of a different aspect. Maybe it was the weapons we were using but a lot of the European stuff was essentially the same as using a club/axe, hit them with a whack using maximum body rotation and worst case scenario, grab the blade and smack them with the hilt (incidentally, my favorite move of all time even if it meant you needed to wear gloves). But this doesn't take into account how you judge this in competitions like OP was asking so I'm afraid I can't compare it to that.
Your bit about the longsword makes me doubt your opinion's validity. There are few overlaps between a dane axe and a longsword, but they are very different for the most part. The longsword has a greater focus on thrusts and grappling, as well as using the pommel more than eastern swordsmanship. Half-swording (which is where the only overlaps with the dane axe are) can easily be done without gloves, since just grabbing the edge won't cut you. You don't actually grip the blade like the handle, you more of less pinch the sides with your hand.
 

bluepilot

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,150
0
0
demoman_chaos said:
Mordekaien said:
This goes for the sports version. There are still styles that use techniques as they were used in real combat, however they are in the minority. I've had the pleasure of trying one of these styles, and I must say it was pretty fun, most of those techniques are pretty similar to those of a longsword.
I greatly prefer that. The longsword does have a lot of moves that I am unsure if were ever used in the east, like half sword and using the pommel to strike.

Hoodlum25 said:
I want to get get into sword fighting possibly kendo, what should I look for in a dojo?
I'd look for a historical/reenactment group first, and a sport group second. Sport fencing is a bit too rigid and picky and doesn't incorporate a large chunk of things you can do.

Spade Lead said:
I am unsure how true that story is. Your wording makes me very suspicious, especially the comparison to Star Wars. Sword fighting movies like those from hollywood? Hollywood is the WORST place to get swordsmanship from.

bluepilot said:
More or less. There is one thrust (that is to the throat) which can be one or two handed. Then there is a straight cut to the head, a straight cut to the right wrist and then a cut to the stomach to the right if moving forwards and to the left if moving backwards. These basic techniques are combined with various parrys, making a total of 46 techniques, which is relatively small for swordsmanship. In old school kendo there used to be 110.

You can ask me anytime ;)
Any idea why they judges are so picky about what you can and can't do?
Keno judges are picky because they have a duty to ensure that the correct kendo is being taught and practiced.

It takes many years of training and is hard work :(
 

CaptainMarvelous

New member
May 9, 2012
869
0
0
demoman_chaos said:
CaptainMarvelous said:
I've actually done Kendo, Kenjutsu and European style sword fighting stuff and it's kind of a different aspect. Maybe it was the weapons we were using but a lot of the European stuff was essentially the same as using a club/axe, hit them with a whack using maximum body rotation and worst case scenario, grab the blade and smack them with the hilt (incidentally, my favorite move of all time even if it meant you needed to wear gloves). But this doesn't take into account how you judge this in competitions like OP was asking so I'm afraid I can't compare it to that.
Your bit about the longsword makes me doubt your opinion's validity. There are few overlaps between a dane axe and a longsword, but they are very different for the most part. The longsword has a greater focus on thrusts and grappling, as well as using the pommel more than eastern swordsmanship. Half-swording (which is where the only overlaps with the dane axe are) can easily be done without gloves, since just grabbing the edge won't cut you. You don't actually grip the blade like the handle, you more of less pinch the sides with your hand.
Pinch? o_O you are joking? Unless Im missing something I am beginning to have doubts we've done the same thing. Ignoring that I'm not sure what a dane axe is, the style I learnt didn't use thrusts all that often, it was mostly locking blades and knocking them out of the way so you had a free shot at the body. Using force rather than the cutting edge to get through or the hilt as a hook (pinch? Because thats stable enough to pull down with the sword). So, whilevI dont really mind if you think Im wrong (it doesnt really change anything) I have got to hear the reason behind this pinching thing.
 

deadish

New member
Dec 4, 2011
694
0
0
CaptainMarvelous said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
MMA fighters put a huge emphasis on the ground game based on the way the rules of their sports work out, but in reality, you never, ever want to get on the ground if you can avoid it.
OK, this is more a side-note, but if it's 1 on 1 you absolutely DO want to take it to the ground if you're trained and they aren't. The problem is when you're fighting more than one person if it's one guy alone in an alley then yes, take him to the ground and save yourself a LOT of trouble by putting him in a choke-hold and cutting off the blood supply to the brain. If he has anyone nearby to help him then you're probably going to get nailed while on the ground, it's very much a contextual thing.

Sorry, but just mentioning that, MMA guys don't go to the ground because it works for their sport they go to the ground because 1 on 1 it's a very good position to be in. I don't like doing the whole 'talking about martial arts experience' over the internet but just throwing in my two cents for that one.

Captcha: Laser Beams, well that would work too
I know shit about fighting, but from what I do know, in the military they tell you to avoid ground fighting as much as possible - or at least they used to during the WWII days.

The reason is you can't see what your opponent is doing and there could be crap on the ground that can injury you - sharp rocks ... etc. While you are doing your fancy holds and shit, your enemy could chance upon a twig and stick it in your arm, leg or worse your back killing you.

Ideally, you should kill/disable your opponent as quickly as possible with strikes to weak areas (throat, shins, eyes, balls ... etc). If you manage to knock your opponent to the ground. Don't go to ground with them!!! Instead kick and stomp them to death!

And to some extend, in MMA, grappling works because all the dangerous striking moves have been outlawed -eye gouges, blows to the temple/groin ... etc.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,986
797
118
Might be a good idea to define "longsword".

Back when I was doing swordfighting, I was told that a longsword was a sword that was longer (hence the name) and thus required two hands. A german longsword was different from an english one.

However, effing D&D has gone and told people that a longsword is a generic single handed sword, and some people use that terminology instead.

(As an aside, if you want to dual wield, the sword and shield combo was used for a reason)
 

BroJing

New member
Sep 16, 2010
109
0
0
demoman_chaos" post="18.390546.15698153 said:
I'd look for a historical/reenactment group first, and a sport group second. Sport fencing is a bit too rigid and picky and doesn't incorporate a large chunk of things you can do.



On a somewhat unrelated note to the main topic I'm not sure this video is the best illustration of Viking age fighting (admittedly I had to watch at work, with the sound off) for two reasons. One is that their shields are very small, more of a later buckler size then the shields we reckon the Vikings used (admittedly very few surviving examples of proven fighting shields, the Gokstad ship shields are very large and there's some debate as to whether they would of been fought with.) and seem more like later buckler fighting.

Also, they are rather wildly swinging at each other whereas Saga sources seem to indicate individual fights were more drawn out with opponents striking when they think there's a weakness. They would try to avoid the shield and the opponents sword. The first because your sword can become lodged between the planks that make a shield and leave you weaponless and the second because of steel quality issues.

Side note, most fighting would of been done in shieldwall at this time with lots of face-stabbing.

I do steel Viking reenactment, and European swordfighting which is why I'm somewhat obsessive.
 

Sneezeguard

New member
Oct 13, 2010
187
0
0
Well from what W've learnt from some rpg's is that, longsword's are for more strength based characters and katana's are more speed/dexterity based, but why would you want to do that when you could throw fireballs!
 

CaptainMarvelous

New member
May 9, 2012
869
0
0
deadish said:
CaptainMarvelous said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
MMA fighters put a huge emphasis on the ground game based on the way the rules of their sports work out, but in reality, you never, ever want to get on the ground if you can avoid it.
OK, this is more a side-note, but if it's 1 on 1 you absolutely DO want to take it to the ground if you're trained and they aren't. The problem is when you're fighting more than one person if it's one guy alone in an alley then yes, take him to the ground and save yourself a LOT of trouble by putting him in a choke-hold and cutting off the blood supply to the brain. If he has anyone nearby to help him then you're probably going to get nailed while on the ground, it's very much a contextual thing.

Sorry, but just mentioning that, MMA guys don't go to the ground because it works for their sport they go to the ground because 1 on 1 it's a very good position to be in. I don't like doing the whole 'talking about martial arts experience' over the internet but just throwing in my two cents for that one.

Captcha: Laser Beams, well that would work too
I know shit about fighting, but from what I do know, in the military they tell you to avoid ground fighting as much as possible - or at least they used to during the WWII days.

The reason is you can't see what your opponent is doing and there could be crap on the ground that can injury you - sharp rocks ... etc. While you are doing your fancy holds and shit, your enemy could chance upon a twig and stick it in your arm, leg or worse your back killing you.

Ideally, you should kill/disable your opponent as quickly as possible with strikes to weak areas (throat, shins, eyes, balls ... etc). If you manage to knock your opponent to the ground. Don't go to ground with them!!! Instead kick and stomp them to death!

And to some extend, in MMA, grappling works because all the dangerous striking moves have been outlawed -eye gouges, blows to the temple/groin ... etc.
Internet keeps eating my posts, so gonna have to be a summarised version.
-You have a point, but it depends on context
-When MMA goes to the ground, they don't just grab a limb and hold, they normally try and control the opponent's movements and then lay into them
-If there is sharp stuff on the ground, the guy who can do holds/grapples can use them too
-It's hard to attack exposed areas if the opponent knows you're going for them
-If you knock your opponent down, you don't go down to them in MMA you smack them while you're standing up so they can't escape
-If you tackle them, i.e. you're both now on the ground, it's better to hit them from the ground than it is to just stand back up because they likely will too

Again, you have a point, it's just you're arguing a different scenario
 

deadish

New member
Dec 4, 2011
694
0
0
CaptainMarvelous said:
Internet keeps eating my posts, so gonna have to be a summarised version.
-You have a point, but it depends on context
-When MMA goes to the ground, they don't just grab a limb and hold, they normally try and control the opponent's movements and then lay into them
Well, the MMA has rules, lots of rules, from Yahoo! Answers,

1. Butting with the head.
2. Eye gouging of any kind.
3. Biting.
4. Hair pulling.
5. Fish hooking.
6. Groin attacks of any kind.
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
8. Small joint manipulation. (Heh!)
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow. (no elbow strikes?)
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
13. Grabbing the clavicle.
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
21. Spitting at an opponent.
22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
23. Holding the ropes or the fence.
24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
30. Interference by the corner.
31. Throwing in the towel during competition.

and those might not apply in an alley (what can I say, people sometimes panic in a fight and at that point anything goes) and definitely doesn't apply on the battlefield.

-If there is sharp stuff on the ground, the guy who can do holds/grapples can use them too
This is why they don't want you to go to the ground!!! Other than the hazard of injuring yourself by landing on a sharp piece of rock. You can't see what your opponent is doing. You DO NOT want to DIE when you fight someone!

-It's hard to attack exposed areas if the opponent knows you're going for them
Oh come now, it's not as if grappling is 100% either. Your guard won't be 100% and when you attempt to grab you will be partially dropping your guard. As you are trying to grab him, if he manages to nail you in the temple with an elbow or knee you in the balls. You more or less have already lost.

In general, whoever gets the first "hard strike", will most likely be the one to win. It's hard to fight back when you are in a delirious amount of pain - assuming you aren't dead (or in the process of dying). Most people can't recover quickly enough from a kick to the balls, hard strike to the shins, or hell even a blow to the nose or stomach before their opponent sock in a few more hits putting them in even more pain (or killing them) - on the battlefield, there is no referee to call a timeout. Also you definitely aren't going to recover from an eye gouge.

If I'm right the US military actually had a debate in the early days of CQC development about whether to make it a priority to ground the opponent or not. Their conclusion was no. It's simpler and quicker to just beat your opponent to death with strikes. If he falls to the ground in the process, all the better, feel free to take advantage of it.

How CQC doctrine has changed since WWII though, I don't know. Might have to ask someone who is in the military.

-If you knock your opponent down, you don't go down to them in MMA you smack them while you're standing up so they can't escape
-If you tackle them, i.e. you're both now on the ground, it's better to hit them from the ground than it is to just stand back up because they likely will too

Again, you have a point, it's just you're arguing a different scenario
So you are partly in agreement with me. Don't grapple, don't go to the ground, if you can help it.
 

CaptainMarvelous

New member
May 9, 2012
869
0
0
deadish said:
Well, the MMA has rules, lots of rules, from Yahoo! Answers,

1. Butting with the head.
2. Eye gouging of any kind.
3. Biting.
4. Hair pulling.
5. Fish hooking.
6. Groin attacks of any kind.
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
8. Small joint manipulation. (Heh!)
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow. (no elbow strikes?)
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
13. Grabbing the clavicle.
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
21. Spitting at an opponent.
22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
23. Holding the ropes or the fence.
24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
30. Interference by the corner.
31. Throwing in the towel during competition.

and those might not apply in an alley (what can I say, people sometimes panic in a fight and at that point anything goes) and definitely doesn't apply on the battlefield.
Not quiiiite sure what this argument was for but assuming you're saying that there are rules for MMA which prohibit certain moves, yeah I agree, it isn't flawless self defence in that regard but if the opponent isn't obeying the rules for this encounter the MMA user won't be either.

This is why they don't want you to go to the ground!!! Other than the hazard of injuring yourself by landing on a sharp piece of rock. You can't see what your opponent is doing. You DO NOT want to DIE when you fight someone!
You don't want to land underneath either o_O you want to be on top, where they can't move, the opponent if pinned because you're doing it right, won't be able to move, you'll be able to see what they can do (which won't be much of anything) but the problem is you can't see what any other opponents are doing which I think is the misunderstanding drawn from that.

Oh come now, it's not as if grappling is 100% either. Your guard won't be 100% and when you attempt to grab you will be partially dropping your guard. As you are trying to grab him, if he manages to nail you in the temple with an elbow or knee you in the balls. You more or less have already lost.
Right, but the point of MMA is you block these strikes and grapple when you aren't likely to be hit, it isn't straight up Judo. The guard only goes down when you have an easy chance to grab them without being injured, it isn't 100% but most people doing it won't just grab wildly for an arm or leg.

In general, whoever gets the first "hard strike", will most likely be the one to win. It's hard to fight back when you are in a delirious amount of pain - assuming you aren't dead (or in the process of dying). Most people can't recover quickly enough from a kick to the balls, hard strike to the shins, or hell even a blow to the nose or stomach before their opponent sock in a few more hits putting them in even more pain (or killing them) - on the battlefield, there is no referee to call a timeout. Also you definitely aren't going to recover from an eye gouge.

If I'm right the US military actually had a debate in the early days of CQC development about whether to make it a priority to ground the opponent or not. Their conclusion was no. It's simpler and quicker to just beat your opponent to death with strikes. If he falls to the ground in the process, all the better, feel free to take advantage of it.

How CQC doctrine has changed since WWII though, I don't know. Might have to ask someone who is in the military.
Again, this is all right (except the part about the shins, those are generally pretty damn tough for trained fighters so I'd shy away from those since the only thing you can normally hit them with is your own shin) but it requires a context where your opponent allows it . Military CQC does not by default mean your opponent loses all sense of training, it can be incredibly effective fighting style but it does not mean an automatic win. The biggest bonus military training has over normal fighting is they get trained to kill and that extra level of determination behind strikes means they can end a confrontation a lot easier than, say, a cage fighter who hesitates.

-If you knock your opponent down, you don't go down to them in MMA you smack them while you're standing up so they can't escape
-If you tackle them, i.e. you're both now on the ground, it's better to hit them from the ground than it is to just stand back up because they likely will too

Again, you have a point, it's just you're arguing a different scenario
So you are partly in agreement with me. Don't grapple, don't go to the ground, if you can help it.[/quote]

Mostly, yeah, but there are scenarios, probably more than I'm listing as examples, where grappling or going to the ground is the best option. One on one combat being the prime example, in war-time combat I would definitely not advise trying to fight on the ground because opponents with guns are likely round the corner. It's all a matter of context, there are scenarios where grappling and going to the ground is the best and safest option if you know what you're doing.
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
CaptainMarvelous said:
This was the video I was looking for. The ARMA has some quite informative videos about the longsword and its use.

deadish said:
FUN FACT: The Spartans were banned from participating in olympic wrestling (The original MMA competition) because they were trained in a form of grappling designed specifically for killing in a battle. The Spartan warriors were as much of a weapon as their spears.
All professional Greek hoplites and most ancient warriors were trained in grappling. A lot of longsword moves involve grappling.

BroJing said:
A fellow live steel viking fighter eh? My group is called Skjaldborg, after the Norse term for sheildwall.
Shield sizes vary quite a bit depending on the fighter's preference (I prefer 25-30 inches myself). A lot of times (especially with spears) you want to hit the enemy shield to make and opening. That and making bits of shield go flying off looks great for the public watching.
 

deadish

New member
Dec 4, 2011
694
0
0
CaptainMarvelous said:
Not quiiiite sure what this argument was for but assuming you're saying that there are rules for MMA which prohibit certain moves, yeah I agree, it isn't flawless self defence in that regard but if the opponent isn't obeying the rules for this encounter the MMA user won't be either.
Your original post, talked about an alley fight. I'm saying alley fights don't have the same rules as MMA. Trying the same tactics might not be advisable. In fact, IMHO, the best thing to do is run. No matter how good you are, there is always a possibility you will lose - even to a "weaker" opponent.

You don't want to land underneath either o_O you want to be on top, where they can't move, the opponent if pinned because you're doing it right, won't be able to move, you'll be able to see what they can do (which won't be much of anything) but the problem is you can't see what any other opponents are doing which I think is the misunderstanding drawn from that.
From what I have seen of grappling arts like Brazilian Jutsu on TV, sometimes you end up at the bottom. There seem to be a lot of rolling on the ground involved and IMO you don't want that - rolling on to a piece of sharp rock = stab self in back.

Secondly, when people say you can' t see your opponent, I believe they are concerned with being able to see the opponent's hands at all times. If your opponent managed to grab a make-shift weapon (or simply pull a concealed knife) and you didn't notice ...

Right, but the point of MMA is you block these strikes and grapple when you aren't likely to be hit, it isn't straight up Judo. The guard only goes down when you have an easy chance to grab them without being injured, it isn't 100% but most people doing it won't just grab wildly for an arm or leg.

...

Again, this is all right (except the part about the shins, those are generally pretty damn tough for trained fighters so I'd shy away from those since the only thing you can normally hit them with is your own shin) but it requires a context where your opponent allows it . Military CQC does not by default mean your opponent loses all sense of training, it can be incredibly effective fighting style but it does not mean an automatic win. The biggest bonus military training has over normal fighting is they get trained to kill and that extra level of determination behind strikes means they can end a confrontation a lot easier than, say, a cage fighter who hesitates.
It all comes down to whether you should bother to grapple when you can just "sock it in" with strikes. The US military thinks "no" - or at least they used to 60 years back.

As for attack to shins, you attack with your foot - with improved effectiveness if you are wearing hard combat boots. Why would you attack with your own shins and risk injuring them?

I just telling you what I read. Going to the ground in "unregulated" situations, non-sport combat, seem like a very bad idea.

PS: BTW military CQC is designed to be easy to learn and execute. It has to be easy to learn because there are only so many hours in a day for training and soldiers got other shit to practice - also in times of war, you need to train them fast. Easy to execute, as instinctive as possible, because on the battlefield, your soldiers will be exhausted and will be very high strung, under such stressful conditions no one is going to be able to remember all the "do this, then do that". Speed of execution > being "clever".