Article on combatives

[darrianation]

On this forum we talk a lot about “Combatives”, which is expected, since that is what I train in, and teach. It’s worth taking a minute to discuss exactly what we mean by Combatives is not a martial art, like Karate, Ju-jutsu, Aikido, Wing Chun. Nor is it a “style”, like Shotokan or Goju-ryu. In articles and forum threads we sometimes see people discussing the merits of a style or system and comparing Combatives, as if it was another similar activity. It’s not. Combatives could be described as “what works in a fight”, and as such transcends such comparative discussions; because if you use this definition the question then becomes “what do you think is best for self protection, Wing Chun, or what works in a fight?” Do you see what I mean, it becomes a ridiculous question.
So, how can we justify the claim that we are emphasising “what works in a fight”?
The primary instructors of Combatives teach from their own direct experience. When Fairbairn and Sykes were appointed as the staff for Britain’s wartime close-combat training it wasn’t because they had cups, trophies, or even because of the black-belt grades. It was because they had used their methods in countless violent confrontations, on the streets of Shanghai, the World’s most dangerous city. Experience was further gathered as trainees returned from wartime operations, so by 1945 the Shanghai foundation was laminated by even more direct application, making the methods taught by Fairbairn, Sykes and their associates highly tested under combat.
Since the war other instructors have offered the results of experience working in the frontline security industry.... notably Geoff Thompson and Peter Consterdine.
All the instructors mentioned teach from “what works in the street”. They all teach different techniques, because we are all individuals and have our own preferences, but the concepts they teach all have a commonality. Everything is simple, direct, aggressive. Pre-emptive where possible, counter-offensive where not. From this we can extend the definition of Combatives to “what works in the street for the
majority of people”
After a recent training session a few of us adjourned to Chinatown for an obligatory scoff. One of the guys mentioned he’d watched a video of a noted MMA instructor, who had disparaged Combatives by saying, in effect, it’s a lot of out of shape guys in cammo gear. Actually, that’s a fair one. Putting on cargo pants to teach does not make a Combatives teacher. Regarding fitness I remember being unimpressed by a lot of the guys who talked the talk in magazines...some of them looked like they couldn’t run up a flight of stairs without stopping five times.
Fitness is essential, to us it’s the mirror image to fighting. “Toughness” is being tough on yourself, pushing the limits, never giving up.... because the scum you confront are likely to be hyped on speed or coke, or in a drunken rage, or just working on sheer natural viciousness. You must have willpower as a weapon, and that is developed in arduous training. Anyway guys, that’s a few thoughts on what we mean by Combatives. Hope it makes sense to you, and puts a context to our discussions here. - Dennis Martin

For full article-
http://message.geoffthompson.com/ubb...c;f=7;t=000364

[Tom Yum]

My understanding of combatives is that its a collection of short/sweet/effective techniques from karate, kungfu, judo, jujitsu, kali and boxing. The emphasis is on maximizing damage and minimizing fight time in an absolute no rules situation where your life could be on the line.

I think the only difference between the above and MMA is that MMA has a few more rules, stops short of killing and definitely emphasizes conditioning.

There is no doubt that the intensity of a full contact MMA match is as real as you can get without breaking the law.