Talk:Hand-to-hand combat

message: Several Inconsistencies with this main topic...
1. No unit whatsoever is required to attend the MAC program at Ft. Benning. Army manuals merely say that training could be done there OR seek training by an outside company.
2. Brazilian Jiu-Jutsu is not a combat art at all. It is a sport. It would've been a combat art if they didn't rape the Japanese Jiu-Jutsu system from which they were founded. The Japanese Jiu-Jutsu systems are the only Jiu-Jutsu systems that have been battle tested. Many people forget that the root Japanese systems were (with exception to Aikido or any other art created during the Meiji era or later) designed for, created for, and applied on the battlefield. Before the Tokugawa Shogunate took power in Japan, all they had was a fuedal system of warring states. 
3. And most importantly... No soldier goes into combat unarmed, EVER. You may run out of bullets, but you still have your knife, tomahawk (if issued), shovel, bayonnet, shoe strings, flashlight, sand, dirt, etc... If you don't use them, your enemy will. Out of all the images on FM 3-25.150 (for example), not one image shows an effective technique to disarm someone with so much as a plastic picnic knife. All of the pictures, with exception of a handful, are involving ground fighting. If you try mounting an enemy during a firefight, you expose your entire body, and you get shot; it's that simple. Never let the fight get to the ground. If it happens to go there, you don't stay there and wrestle with him. I guarantee that if for some reason you don't have the mental capacity to use everything on you as a weapon, you're the wrong one in the combat zone. If you're not learning how to use weapons and disarm enemies with weapons, effectively, you're not going to survive in a real situation. Go somewhere that teaches realistic combat techniques in realistic scenarios. Some are located right outside the gates to some of the bases.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1nstructor77 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: There have been several attempts lately to hoist "U.R.B.A.N. Combatives", a comercial proprietary system who have trained a few units, to the level of the doctrinal systsems of both the US Army and Air Force. Can we not do any better than to have a constant barage of unsourced claims and advertising?
I can agree with blatant advertising. H2H is a commercial proprietary term and the way the "Military Combatives" page is written is set to advertise the H2H MACP. So to ensure accuracy, the URBAN system was mentioned as it is used currently by DoD components and other systems were also mentioned. So, to add reference, the Army Regulations were also added. The regulations show that H2H is not mentioned neither is MACP by name either. The methods of selecting combatives instructors is still in the hands of the individual unit commanders. If the blatant advertising from the H2H and MACP folks goes away then corrections will not be needed. The URBAN program is a legitimate DoD recognized and fully registered military system. If we are trying to accurately describe the state of Military Combatives then this should be included. If photos depicting sporting style techniques are posted, please label them correctly as such. Otherwise the public is being mislead. 
If H2H or MACP wants to advertise thier system then the page should be labeled as such. Military Combatives is too broad for that. In fairness and accuracy the currently used systems should all be mentioned. 
If this seems too much to ask then remove everything except for the Army Regulations describing it. The references to a commercial off the shelf, for profit book, H2H need not be thrown in there for advertising. H2H is not a common term. 
In short, we can do better. We can accurately describe military combatives without needing to flourish the H2H. Ensure that the other systems are mentioned. A lot of the students of these systems are taking insult to the gaps in information on this particular page. They have been attempting to correct these gaps.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by URBANlvl4 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Blatant advertising

message: Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links.  You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. This particular article has a history of editors doing just that.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 17:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links on this article

message: Wouldn't it be better if the name was "Hand-to-hand combat" with dashes instead of spaces? -- Frap 22:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be closer to proper English than it is now. hateless 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I'm not in favor of merging Close quarters combat into this article, from my experiences, CCQ is closer to being a subset or a discipline of hand to hand combat rather than a synonym. CCQ has modern military connoctations which hand to hand does not. hateless 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Close quaters combat can include weapons of all sort, this can't and they're totally different forms of combat.
82.3.245.220 21:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, don't merge 

message: The article is inconsistent. The title uses "hand to hand" when the text uses "hand-to-hand". --Mika1h (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: Is there any evidence to support the claim that systema has military origins? 80.229.221.14 (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systema 

message: Is obviously not a H2H sport. You use a lance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.212.7 (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jousting? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hand-to-hand combat. 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/20141015133818/http://www.aikiproductions.com/history-of-modern-self-defense/ to http://www.aikiproductions.com/history-of-modern-self-defense/
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) 21:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified