Talk:Combatives

message: It seems as if the people editing these pages do not know the first thing about the subject. The MCMAP, and MACP were specifically created by their respective services as martial arts. They have at the very least tens of thousands of students, more than the vast majority of civilian hobby "martial arts". Wikipedia is a clown show. 16 Oct 2023   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.6.102.69 (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. I find that despite the phrase's origin's (ie. a military art; essentially anything used by the military in a skillful manner to kill people) most people only view martial arts as pertaining to Asian fighting styles. Technically, sniping, demolitions, etc are modern martial arts. At any rate, even using the modern, skewed connotation, it still fits the bill of a martial art. Combatives is certainly a manual combat technique, with weapons techniques. Even going back to the old Combatives FM, I'd still call it a martial art. The football kick or the sentry takedowns are certainly Western and American, as opposed to Asian, but I'd be hard pressed to not call them martial arts. I do think that the Taijitu is fairly ridiculous to use as a symbol for all martial arts, as there are a significant number of martial arts without any direct connection to Chinese mysticism, though. EvilCouch 15:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The voice of reason! My thin skin is salved, Mr Couch! Rorybowman 19:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm here to salve wounds and chew bubble-gum. And I'm all out of bubble-gum. EvilCouch 19:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They live! Rorybowman 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Martial art

message: While this term is used by the US army, I'm not sure it should be used on Wikipedia as a replacement or synonym of "hybrid martial arts" in general, as suggested by the current edit of the Mixed martial arts article which says:
:"A mixed martial art is also sometimes used to describe a hybrid style of martial arts which incorporate techniques and theories from several different martial arts. These are covered in their separate article on Combatives." 
Shawnc 03:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. There are many, many hybrid martial arts (such as Kajukenbo) which are not combatives, but shouldn't that edit be made at Mixed martial arts ? My rationale for edits to this article in December 2005 was to (1) acknowledge strong history of combatives as distinct from cultural or recreational "martial arts", (2) consolidate material that was technically imprecise under topics such as "hand-to-hand combat," "close quarter combat," etcetera and (3) make this article read less like a press release or brochure for civilian combatives instruction. The final paragraph used to be much less imprecise and NPOV so I tried to edit the tone down a bit and provide a quick perspective on the subject of civilian instruction. Should we perhaps add a new subsection on "Criticisms?" (Krav maga! It's the next Tae Bo!) My goal here is to provide enough factual information that the average person won't be taken in by self-serving, ahistorical charlatans who claim to be teaching the fighting secrets of the Green Barettes. For reference please see McDojo re bullshido. 8^) - Rorybowman 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Combatives vs "Hybrid martial arts"

message: Combatives is frequently criticised for a number of reasons. Active soldiers or military personnel look down on civilian practitioners as poseurs or "wanna-bes" or complain that the modest techniques it introduces are inadequate for real-world battlefield conditions. Traditional martial artists may object to it for its acultural and amoral lack of any spiritual aspect for self-improvement. Other martial artists may object to the McDojo aspects of its macho marketing, perceived as "bullshido."  Although a wide variety of people may have trained individual military units, usually these trainings are supplemental to standard military training, and this is not necessarily made clear to potential students, including commercial or law-enforcement agencies.
References for Criticism:
* In Search of the Warrior Spirit: Teaching Awareness Disciplines to the Green Berets by Richard Strozzi-Heckler. 3rd edition 
* Practical Martial Arts for Special Forces]
* E-Budo forum on US Army FM 3-25.150
:The criticisms section at the moment is very incomplete. If you are going to be NPOV, you need to point out that the most widespread criticism is that the whole thing is a complete waste of time, at best a morale-building exercise, and aruably a machismo exercise with no practical military value. I'm not saying I agree with that view, but it is very common even in the infantry; and in arguing about it, so far I have been unable to find even one verifiable example of unarmed/improvised weapon combat between soldiers on the battlefield in the last half century. The best I have found so far are references to ROKA units in the Vietnam War allegedly used garrottes and tae kwon do or teuk gong moo sool. However all claims of them actually doing so in combat (as against merely training in it, or talking about it) trace back to a single report by British journalist Tim Page. And reading between the lines, that event actually sounds more like a prisoner execution. --144.138.137.41 01:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me the criticisms (and probably the entire article) are written by people without any experience in Combatives. I'm sure there are plenty of references to close-in fighting, for instance this is in the news recently: 3rd paragraph states "An occupant of one of the cars attacked Dunham and the two fought hand to hand." source:Marine to receive Medal of Honor for Iraq heroism Perhaps people interested in writing a balanced article and/or criticisms would be wise to do some actual research? 60.234.225.235 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms (notes toward a possible new subheading) 

message: Doesn't combatives also describe hybrid fighting system that is used anywhere in military application? (While not associating them with martial arts). In the hybrid martial arts stub, it says that combatives is associated with the US military, but couldn't it be associated with any country? ---Marcus- 12:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. There is a bit of a political issue around nomenclature between and among US military personnel, with the USMC preferring the term "close combat" to the Army's term "combatives" but essentially they are the same. I'd have to check an Oxford English Dictionary to find when exactly the word "combatives" was coined, but suspect (based on the titles of field manuals) that it was a United States Army neologism from within the last fifty years. Since it is a single word unlikely to be confused with similar terms (such as "close quarters battle") and the US Army is much larger than the Marine Corps, there are various reasons it has become more popular. Until the recent increase in civilian instructors offering self-defense training with weapons, the word was almost never used outside of the US Army infantry. For various grammatical reasons it is also a better general term in English, which would lead to quicker adoption outside of its initial technical sphere (the US Army). The previous most common phrase was "hand-to-hand combat" or simply "hand-to-hand" but with the increased popularity of martial arts as a hobby pursuit, this is more ambiguous as a technical term, so falling into disuse. Rorybowman 17:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The word "heart" has more hits than "right ventricle," but for technical terms, the "google test" may not always be best. Rorybowman 15:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Combatives outside the US?

message: Rorybowman 23:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I trimmed down the Modern Training section to let the article flow better. I think it looks better that way, but if anyone disagrees, we can always revert it. EvilCouch 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article for US Army Combatives? 

message: It seems the curse of Wikipedia to have only vaguely-related people want to post a link to their pet project, and this seems to be happening to the "Civilian Instructors" section. I'm thinking it should be hived off so it doesn't end up being a miscellaneous collection of links by the self-aggrandizing. Comments and feedback? I won't be doing anything until the end of July 2006. Rorybowman 02:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian Instructors 

message: There are some major flaws in this article, which need to be addressed:
1) The term "combatives", though appropriated by the US Army in recent times, does in fact predate the Army's usage by at least 20 years, and has been used in several different forms ("Unarmed Combatives", "Close Combatives", etc.).  It was not "first used by the US Army".  Whether or not that sentence is meant to give that impression, it does.
2) "Regulated in the United States much as private tutors, health clubs, private gun shops or private security agencies, some combatives systems are expanding into other markets and niches worldwide."
This sentence makes absolutely no sense.  There is no regulation of martial arts, combatives, "combat sports", or anything of the sort in the United States (excepting boxing and other forms of combat competition, i.e. boxing licenses).  This sentence also implies that the concept of simplified unarmed combat has originated in the United States and is now spreading around the world, which is patently absurd.
3) The entire "criticisms" paragraph should probably be eliminated, or else seriously reworked.  It reads like a condensed version of several different long-running arguments within the martial arts community.  It is not clear exactly what criticisms are being levelled at those training in "combatives", versus which are being levelled by practicioners of "combatives", versus which are criticisms which have no bearing on "combatives".  
I did read the section of this talk page regarding the "criticisms" section.  Many of the criticisms being cited, are the individual opinions of a few select individuals.  This "criticisms" entry, if it is going to be applicable to a very broad audience, should not consist of the opinions of a very few persons, written up in such a way as to sound all-encompassing.
Roundeyesamurai 11:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference for (1) above? Perhaps change the wording to "popularized by the US Army?  If you swing back through the history of the article, you may appreciate that the section on civilian instructors was obliquely making exactly the points you do, mostly as a caveat about various "reality-based training" scamsters: private instructors in the US are almost completely unregulated, but take inflated claims overseas as well as to the suburbs, which is largely the reason for the "criticisms" section. These criticisms (3) contain many voiced within the Ebudo discussion  which SFC Larsen himself weighed in on. A review of the history of this article shows it is a major challenge to various self-aggrandizing claims by Krav Maga types, et al, and these sections are innoculation against future such claims. Rorybowman 08:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Revision 

message: I removed "aikijutsu" as one of the "Samurai" martial arts, because "aikijutsu" is principally a 20th-century term and distinction.  Roundeyesamurai 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Edit 

message: I've removed the reference to gunpowder emerging in the Napoleonic Wars - was in full scale use by the Thirty Years War.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooperfremantle (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edit 

message: I feel that this is heavily biased and desperate to make the MACP this extremely effective style with no real basis. It's even being revised according to various documents I've read up on (I was in the Army for 10 years and I'm level 2 Certified in Combatives). It also seems to try way too hard to make Matt Larsen out to be some combat-hardened war veteran when after actually checking out his resume, he's extremely limited...if experienced at all! Unless there's something I don't know about that even he won't admit? Why are so many people just desperate to act like MACP and Larsen are these GIANTS among lesser beings in military hand to hand when both have been heavily criticized, Larsen isn't being hired anymore and MACP got drastically revised after experience proved a lot of the instructions flawed? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be unbiased and professional about information? No name74331 (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Combatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051221202950/http://www.americancombatives.com:80/cqchistory.htm to http://www.americancombatives.com/cqchistory.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Combatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930155315/http://www.k-state.edu/artsci/das198/course%20info.htm to http://www.k-state.edu/artsci/das198/course%20info.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Combatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051221202950/http://www.americancombatives.com/cqchistory.htm to http://www.americancombatives.com/cqchistory.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904130421/http://www.asjja.com/other.htm to http://www.asjja.com/other.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Combatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://mmaxm.com/xm/mma-fighters/andrew-powerhouse-chappelle/20
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060409120744/http://www.closecombatinstructors.com:80/close-combat-association.htm to http://www.closecombatinstructors.com/close-combat-association.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Combatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120729090640/http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/01/army_combatives_080128w/ to http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/01/army_combatives_080128w/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120906053458/http://www.farbros.ru/ to http://www.farbros.ru/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.closecombatinstructors.com/close-combat-association.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "In recent years the major tenets of MAC, namely "live" training and using competitions as a tool to motivate Soldiers and units to higher levels of training, have been adopted by many of the major Combatives Systems such as Krav Maga and the Russian military hand-to-hand combat system."
>"live" training and using competitions... have been adopted by... the Russian military hand-to-hand combat system.
Russians have ARB (Army Hand-to-Hand Combat) since 1979, the first competition was held in the same year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARB_(martial_art)
So, maybe it was Soviet model, adopted by the USA Army, for the sake of truth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.106.139.63 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconception 

message: *"The three basic options upon encountering a resistant opponent taught are". 89.8.142.253 (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barely okay (or not)