# Combative system vs Martial arts



## Uaria (Jul 25, 2016)

How is combative system differs from Martial arts? Or is it just another from of MA?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 25, 2016)

What do you call a combative system? Do you have a style/club/school/gym in mind?


----------



## Uaria (Jul 25, 2016)

I just seen a blog discussing about it. Thought it might be a good idea to ask people around here. When I google it combatives is more on hand-to-hand training and techniques. I also want to learn more about it. Like how effective it is than martial arts in general. 

Any ideas?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 25, 2016)

No ideas because it's martial arts, it may depend on the style but 'combatives' to me is a title for certain places that want to make what they do sound butch.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 25, 2016)

It is different and special because the guy teaching it says so.


----------



## Red Sun (Jul 25, 2016)

Hey, send me $20 and i'll teach you how to kick someone in the groin. 

Just google Krav Maga, MCMAP, and about 1/2 way through the propoganda, try to notice that they're both basically boxing/kickboxing and some basic grappling.


----------



## Uaria (Jul 25, 2016)

Hahaha. Thanks. Ill try to dig more into it


----------



## Uaria (Jul 25, 2016)

Touch Of Death said:


> It is different and special because the guy teaching it says so.



Haha. Yeah right. Well, got curious w this one. Ill try to search. Thanks tho


----------



## Uaria (Jul 25, 2016)

Red Sun said:


> Hey, send me $20 and i'll teach you how to kick someone in the groin.
> 
> Just google Krav Maga, MCMAP, and about 1/2 way through the propoganda, try to notice that they're both basically boxing/kickboxing and some basic grappling.



So it's more of punching? Nah, im more interested in using the entire body not just to kick and punch... more like pressure points as well and disarming an oponent using the different hand techniques. Thats why i got curious with combatives. Anyhow, ill just try to search more. But thanks to the idea!


----------



## frank raud (Jul 25, 2016)

Most combatives are military based/influenced and short term course designed to give you something to work with, better than nothing. Want that disarm to work? Practice, practice, practice. As combative systems take their techniques from martial arts, they are not better, but a condensed version. Think you can be a bad *** with a few techniques and little practice? Take your average combatives course. Believe it takes time and practice to get good at something? Practice a martial art, learn the same techniques in depth.  24 years of researching/practicing/teaching WWII combatives in addition to practicing martial arts.


----------



## crazydiamond (Jul 25, 2016)

Red Sun said:


> Hey, send me $20 and i'll teach you how to kick someone in the groin.



Not taught in UFC gyms - against the rules.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 25, 2016)

crazydiamond said:


> Not taught in UFC gyms - against the rules.



That's not to say it doesn't happen 'accidently' though! Sometimes it even happens genuinely accidently.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Everyone wants to believe they are special. So instead of doing martial arts where you would be put on an even playing field with other martial arts. 

You become combatives. So that your proof of effectiveness depends on your own standards.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 25, 2016)

Since I teach a combatives system. I would like to answer this in a little more detail.  and it seem folks here have a low opinion of combative systems. i cannot speak to what others do. much the same as karate styles, sweeping generalization statements are never accurate. you can not lump everyone in together. everyone has their own opinion based on their own experience.  reading the comments i disagree with most of them but i can understand the sentiment because "combatives" is a loose term that is gaining in popularity and any John Doe can half learn some martial arts and call it combatives to get around the whole earning a rank thing and honest credentials.  so i will admit there is a whole lot of half wits out there, the same can be said of all martial arts.  buyer beware.  however i could argue that traditional martial arts can hide behind a black belt that was purchased on- line with the certificate. while MMA and combatives have to stand on its own merit of skill and ability.  as was recently shown in another MT thread.

all that being said... there are differences in good combatives and standard martial arts and like i said i will only make comparisons and for what i do.  
combatives may be called a martial art. i have no problem with that but martial arts gives a very particular image of what your getting and a combatives system will be a different package.  all forms of human combative behavior starts with a philosophical methodology to deal with violence and self defense.  combatives are different from standard martial art styles in this philosophy and how it effects the system.  
as example we would all like to earn more money. one philosophy would be to show up for your job everyday and wait for a raise. another philosophy would be to get a better education and apply for a higher paying job and yet another would be to play the numbers and hope to win.  with MMA, by looking at the curriculum it is not much different than martial arts from the prior 20 or so years or other martial arts, but there is a philosophical starting point that is a clear divergence from traditional martial arts. combatives is the same.
i do not practice as many strikes and kicks as say TKD or kung fu.  this is on purpose, not because of lack of skill.  it is well known in law enforcement that in critical situations every decision that must be made, reduces the reaction time for a response. for this reason i teach a limited amount of strikes to reinforce the neural receptors and network in the brain. it is also known that under stress your fine motor skill will diminish and gross motor skills will increase. all strikes must be gross motor skill driven.  these strikes must also transfer to a weapon.  you cannot learn a different skill set and have to try and transfer from weapons to empty hand.  the system must work seamlessly between weapons and non-weapons.  
standard martial arts are a skill dependent style. by that i mean the entire curriculum revolves around learning the  physical skills that make up the style.  hand strikes, kicks, the forms and their application.  if you removed punches, kicks and the forms there wouldnt be much left to learn.  combatives is a little different in that while skill set is important (no way around that)  it is only one facet of the system.  this is not unlike the many conversations we have had on this sight about womens self defense.  the same holds true for reality based self defense systems.  there is just more to it than just punching and kicking.   if your traditional martial arts training involves scenario training congrats because you are in the minority.

check out what Lee Morrison is teaching in this video.  he is one of the guys i would recomend paying attention to.





this is Geoff Thompson,  one of the top names around. i really like his stuff ...but as he got older he went in another direction, more peace, love and harmony so a lot of what you see on youtube is going to be him talking about self perfection.





Kelly Mcann... my vote for top combatives instructor out there.   his H2H skills are good but not always great but he makes up for it being a top fire arm instructor as well.





this is Kelly with his brief explanation between combatives and other martial arts.  i will state that i do not personally agree with his statement about training for 2 hours and having it work at the 7eleven that night.  for that reason my own instruction is based on an IBT ( initial basic training) and then a level 2 and level 3 which is an ongoing course.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 25, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> Since I teach a combatives system. I would like to answer this in a little more detail.  and it seem folks here have a low opinion of combative systems. i cannot speak to what others do. much the same as karate styles, sweeping generalization statements are never accurate. you can not lump everyone in together. everyone has their own opinion based on their own experience.  reading the comments i disagree with most of them but i can understand the sentiment because "combatives" is a loose term that is gaining in popularity and any John Doe can half learn some martial arts and call it combatives to get around the whole earning a rank thing and honest credentials.  so i will admit there is a whole lot of half wits out there, the same can be said of all martial arts.  buyer beware.  however i could argue that traditional martial arts can hide behind a black belt that was purchased on- line with the certificate. while MMA and combatives have to stand on its own merit of skill and ability.  as was recently shown in another MT thread.
> 
> all that being said... there are differences in good combatives and standard martial arts and like i said i will only make comparisons and for what i do.
> combatives may be called a martial art. i have no problem with that but martial arts gives a very particular image of what your getting and a combatives system will be a different package.  all forms of human combative behavior starts with a philosophical methodology to deal with violence and self defense.  combatives are different from standard martial art styles in this philosophy and how it effects the system.
> ...



Those are kind of meta ideas that you are attributing to a specific training methodology.

You could suggest timing or space or stress concepts to a martial artist and they will generally have been reflected in their own training.

And you could probably find those same ideas in a lot of non martial activities as well.

A lot of what you learn in martial arts is not explicitly trained. You are not trained in being disciplined. But after a year of turning up every day. You may find you have gained some.

The being sworn at is an interesting concept. Some people who confront you may scare you and some may not. It is a lot of factors involved there. Overcoming being sworn at is one element. But it only sets you up for one sort attack. You may be surprised at what sorts of fears sneak up and jump you.

So you learn to act and think while scared. Which can be trained in many different ways.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 25, 2016)

Double post


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 25, 2016)

It's not so much the language but the intensity and feeling in the training.  Many MA go through there training as if it were a social event. Which it is...for some people.


drop bear said:


> A lot of what you learn in martial arts is not explicitly trained.


But that's the point. If your training is not specified to address certain things then by default you are leaving it up chance. Some will get it and some wont. Either way it will take longer.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 25, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> It's not so much the language but the intensity and feeling in the training.  Many MA go through there training as if it were a social event. Which it is...for some people.
> 
> But that's the point. If your training is not specified to address certain things then by default you are leaving it up chance. Some will get it and some wont. Either way it will take longer.



Only so long as the specified training is shown to produce the better results.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> if you removed punches, kicks and the forms there wouldnt be much left to learn. combatives is a little different in that while skill set is important (no way around that) it is only one facet of the system. this is not unlike the many conversations we have had on this sight about womens self defense. the same holds true for reality based self defense systems. there is just more to it than just punching and kicking. if your traditional martial arts training involves scenario training congrats because you are in the minority.



I think you are generalising yourself here about how many train. I don't believe the minority teach scenarios, a good many instructors I know do. Many instructors of all styles are members of the British Combat Association which teach good solid self defence within their traditional styles. Kata and Bunkai has come back into it's own again as what it was designed to be, many practitioners such as Iain Abernethy have shown that traditional martial arts aren't just about, kicks, punches and what many thought pointless...kata. There is far more to traditional styles than some are teaching.



hoshin1600 said:


> this is Geoff Thompson, one of the top names around. i really like his stuff ...



A very good karateka by the way.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 26, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I think you are generalising yourself here about how many train. I don't believe the minority teach scenarios, a good many instructors I know do. Many instructors of all styles are members of the British Combat Association which teach good solid self defence within their traditional styles. Kata and Bunkai has come back into it's own again as what it was designed to be, many practitioners such as Iain Abernethy have shown that traditional martial arts aren't just about, kicks, punches and what many thought pointless...kata. There is far more to traditional styles than some are teaching.
> A very good karateka by the way.


i did say that generalizations are usually not accurate. i understand that.  but we all must admit things like scenario based training was never and is still not part of the official curriculum for many styles.  


let me make a different point

so we are talking about a system to deal with violence.
with no belts, no gi, no ranking. no foreign language.  its not boxing, not karate, judo, BJJ, TKD or kung fu.  its not an asian martial art......what do you call it???


----------



## Red Sun (Jul 26, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> i did say that generalizations are usually not accurate. i understand that.  but we all must admit things like scenario based training was never and is still not part of the official curriculum for many styles.
> 
> 
> let me make a different point
> ...



...a martial art.
Combatives is a term people use to disassociate themselves from martial arts, but you're still martial artists whether you like it or not. Much in the same way, i'm an athlete, regardless of my reasons for training.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 26, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> so we are talking about a system to deal with violence.
> with no belts, no gi, no ranking. no foreign language.  its not boxing, not karate, judo, BJJ, TKD or kung fu.  its not an asian martial art......what do you call it???



How about calling it a martial art?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 26, 2016)

So we have two votes for "martial art".  
So when I am asked what style of martial art I do am I supposed to say ..martial art martial art.    
Re read my posts guys. I said I don't have a problem with it being called a martial art, that's what it is. But it's not karate, judo or TKD.  Karate is a specific term everyone knows what karate is and if I called it karate it would be wrong. Same with any other style name...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 26, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> So we have two votes for "martial art".
> So when I am asked what style of martial art I do am I supposed to say ..martial art martial art.
> Re read my posts guys. I said I don't have a problem with it being called a martial art, that's what it is. But it's not karate, judo or TKD.  Karate is a specific term everyone knows what karate is and if I called it karate it would be wrong. Same with any other style name...



If you invented it, you can call it whatever you want. How about "hoshin karate?"
And karate is about the most generic MA term I can think of. I suspect most lay-people consider ANY martial art with even a hint of Asian influence to be karate.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> So we have two votes for "martial art".
> So when I am asked what style of martial art I do am I supposed to say ..martial art martial art.
> Re read my posts guys. I said I don't have a problem with it being called a martial art, that's what it is. But it's not karate, judo or TKD.  Karate is a specific term everyone knows what karate is and if I called it karate it would be wrong. Same with any other style name...



Karate is a generic term, Judo and TKD aren't. I know a lot of places that do Shotokan karate, Wado Ryu karate etc, each style is different although it comes under the general term karate.


----------



## Red Sun (Jul 26, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> So we have two votes for "martial art".
> So when I am asked what style of martial art I do am I supposed to say ..martial art martial art.
> Re read my posts guys. I said I don't have a problem with it being called a martial art, that's what it is. But it's not karate, judo or TKD.  Karate is a specific term everyone knows what karate is and if I called it karate it would be wrong. Same with any other style name...



Im sorry, what? How did we misunderstand you?
What does the name of your martial art have to do with anything in this thread so far?



hoshin1600 said:


> so we are talking about a system to deal with violence.
> with no belts, no gi, no ranking. no foreign language.  its not boxing, not karate, judo, BJJ, TKD or kung fu.  its not an asian martial art......what do you call it???



...do you want us to rename the combatives system you teach?
It may just be that you _meant _one thing and _said _something else. Please clarify.


----------



## frank raud (Jul 26, 2016)

[QUOTE="hoshin1600, post: 1776311, member: 32360"

so we are talking about a system to deal with violence.
with no belts, no gi, no ranking. no foreign language.  its not boxing, not karate, judo, BJJ, TKD or kung fu.  its not an asian martial art......what do you call it???[/QUOTE] Hoshin Defense System? Policedo? Defendo? Nightbreed Tactical Combat? Steve's Academy of Self Defense?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2016)

frank raud said:


> [QUOTE="hoshin1600, post: 1776311, member: 32360"
> 
> so we are talking about a system to deal with violence.
> with no belts, no gi, no ranking. no foreign language.  its not boxing, not karate, judo, BJJ, TKD or kung fu.  its not an asian martial art......what do you call it???


 Hoshin Defense System? Policedo? Defendo? Nightbreed Tactical Combat? Steve's Academy of Self Defense?[/QUOTE]

MMA? Not everyone competes who trains in it.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> i did say that generalizations are usually not accurate. i understand that.  but we all must admit things like scenario based training was never and is still not part of the official curriculum for many styles.
> 
> 
> let me make a different point
> ...



That is probably a better delineation.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 26, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> we are talking about a system to deal with violence.
> with no belts, no gi, no ranking. no foreign language. its not boxing, not karate, judo, BJJ, TKD or kung fu. its not an asian martial art......what do you call it???


Hate to quote myself but I got off on a tangent. This was a semi retorical question.  My point was combatives is different from standard martial arts in the same way MMA is different. MMA is not a style of martial art  but it is a martial art.  It's something a little different.  Viking sword or ax combat would be different as well. That was my only point.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 26, 2016)

Most combatives systems teach in short courses because that is the way it is done in the military and law enforcement.  They are required to do so many hours of training per year. The assumption is that the officer will be honing the skill in real time under real conditions.  But it is well known that the short training time is inadequate.  Matt Lawson come up with the MACP to help fix this. But that is an entirely different conversation


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 26, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> check out what Lee Morrison is teaching in this video.  he is one of the guys i would recomend paying attention to.


Definately.  He is, for me, the top guy around now that Geoff Thompson has, as you say, taken a different direction.


----------



## Koshiki (Jul 27, 2016)

Uaria said:


> So it's more of punching? Nah, im more interested in using the entire body not just to kick and punch... more like pressure points as well and disarming an oponent using the different hand techniques. Thats why i got curious with combatives. Anyhow, ill just try to search more. But thanks to the idea!



I don't know if the OP's still around and reading, but to get back a bit to their original enquiry:

I'd be careful looking into systems heavy in pressure points and disarms. They're cool, exciting, and very impressive to watch, and certainly subjects which should be studied. But, while there's a great deal of mysticism and untested ideas in pretty much all martial arts, I think it's safe to say there may be more of it when it comes to pressure points and disarms.

Just to be clear, it's not that these these have no value, it's just that they should be that famous icing on an already delicious cake, and some people will try to serve you a bowl of frosting.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2016)

Zack Cart said:


> I don't know if the OP's still around and reading, but to get back a bit to their original enquiry:
> 
> I'd be careful looking into systems heavy in pressure points and disarms. They're cool, exciting, and very impressive to watch, and certainly subjects which should be studied. But, while there's a great deal of mysticism and untested ideas in pretty much all martial arts, I think it's safe to say there may be more of it when it comes to pressure points and disarms.
> 
> Just to be clear, it's not that these these have no value, it's just that they should be that famous icing on an already delicious cake, and some people will try to serve you a bowl of frosting.



Yeah.  If you are striking people you need to know how to strike.  If you are grappling people you need to know how to grapple.

Pressure points dont change that dynamic.


----------



## Koshiki (Jul 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  If you are striking people you need to know how to strike.  If you are grappling people you need to know how to grapple.
> 
> Pressure points dont change that dynamic.



Yeah, also you never know when the guy might have his tongue on the roof of his mouth, or be alternately flexing his big toes...


----------



## tony dear (Aug 5, 2016)

Uaria said:


> How is combative system differs from Martial arts? Or is it just another from of MA?


Martial arts and combats sports are what you do WITH people..combatives is what you do  TO  people or ON someone....


----------



## tony dear (Aug 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Everyone wants to believe they are special. So instead of doing martial arts where you would be put on an even playing field with other martial arts.
> 
> You become combatives. So that your proof of effectiveness depends on your own standards.


totally disagree..check out KELLY mC cann sir.


----------



## Blindside (Aug 5, 2016)

tony dear said:


> totally disagree..check out KELLY mC cann sir.



I have, and haven't seen anything out of him that I haven't seen in other martial arts.  I think his stuff is all good stuff, but it is still martial arts.  He has come up with some internal definitions that he uses to separate himself from "martial arts" but that is crap, because there are plenty of martial artists who don't train the way he describes "martial artists" as doing.


----------



## tony dear (Aug 5, 2016)

At the end of the day..it depends if you do this for business or pleasure sir....I just want to survive a potential attack on myelf friends or family...and have done until now...anything that helps this is ok with me...respect, t


----------



## Red Sun (Aug 5, 2016)

tony dear said:


> totally disagree..check out KELLY mC cann sir.



I've seen the Combatives For Street Survival DVDs, and read the accompanying book at one point. All pretty mundane combatives stuff, except for the defense. The defensive work is some of the best i've seen from the combatives world. He's one of the only guys who seems to address the issue of closing the gap on someone who isn't catapulting himself into you with every attack, or starting at close range (i.e. a brawl.)

Now, the bad part. In one of his DVDs, he demonstrates using a chin jab to counter-attack while you're bent over, covering your head, having your skull smashed to smithereens by a nonstop flurry of punches... It's not the _worst _response in the world, but it's not a strategy i'd like to stake my health and wellbeing on. Would you?

I take issue to it because his OWN SYSTEM has a better response to this situation.



tony dear said:


> Martial arts and combats sports are what you do WITH people..combatives is what you do  TO  people or ON someone....



This is a logical fallacy.
Martial Arts AND Combatives are something you learn WITH your training partners, then do TO someone in the real world. Sport applications are meaningless if your purpose for training is self defense or personal development.


----------



## tony dear (Aug 5, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Definately.  He is, for me, the top guy around now that Geoff Thompson has, as you say, taken a different direction.


He is superb and his hero was /is Kelly Mcann


----------



## tony dear (Aug 5, 2016)

Red Sun said:


> I've seen the Combatives For Street Survival DVDs, and read the accompanying book at one point. All pretty mundane combatives stuff, except for the defense. The defensive work is some of the best i've seen from the combatives world. He's one of the only guys who seems to address the issue of closing the gap on someone who isn't catapulting himself into you with every attack, or starting at close range (i.e. a brawl.)
> 
> Now, the bad part. In one of his DVDs, he demonstrates using a chin jab to counter-attack while you're bent over, covering your head, having your skull smashed to smithereens by a nonstop flurry of punches... It's not the _worst _response in the world, but it's not a strategy i'd like to stake my health and wellbeing on. Would you?
> 
> ...


I agree..sport is sport....combatives doesnt really use blocks..why wait?


----------



## tony dear (Aug 5, 2016)

sport is sport..martial arts is martial arts....self defence is self defence...... you would never go to a Spanish class to learn French ..even though there IS alot of crossover......lol


----------



## tony dear (Aug 5, 2016)

Red Sun said:


> ...a martial art.
> Combatives is a term people use to disassociate themselves from martial arts, but you're still martial artists whether you like it or not. Much in the same way, i'm an athlete, regardless of my reasons for training.


I love the term MARTIAL ART....just dont like when some schools say...learn the art of aikido or whatever then it says....oh it can ALSO be used as an effective form of self defence.....so Id go to an istructor who focusses on real world style attacks. Thats all.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 5, 2016)

tony dear said:


> totally disagree..check out KELLY mC cann sir.




Who has he fought?

Anyway I checked out a video and the difference between martial arts and combatives is training with intensity and resistance.






Who knew all this time I was doing Combatives.

Not me in this clip.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 6, 2016)

To the OP.  Other people have given good explanations but, perhaps, missed one thing.  Usually Combative systems, especially Military and LE related have the specific career they were designed for front and center.  Examples...

LE: Gracie Combatives and LOCKUP come immediately to mind.  These involve striking and such but they are primarily use to set up take downs and restraint methods.  The system will also teach techniques in the context of the potential incidents (are you alone or with other officers), fighting with gear on, weapon retention etc.

Military: the Rangers and other US Special Forces train (or trained, not sure today) in a system called SOCP.  Due to the changing nature of Military operations this system has similarities to the LE systems but also adds a dimension.  They do a lot of training on how you may be forced into hand to hand but techniques are taught with the intent of quickly disengaging to draw access a lethal force tool.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 6, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> To the OP.  Other people have given good explanations but, perhaps, missed one thing.  Usually Combative systems, especially Military and LE related have the specific career they were designed for front and center.  Examples...
> 
> LE: Gracie Combatives and LOCKUP come immediately to mind.  These involve striking and such but they are primarily use to set up take downs and restraint methods.  The system will also teach techniques in the context of the potential incidents (are you alone or with other officers), fighting with gear on, weapon retention etc.
> 
> Military: the Rangers and other US Special Forces train (or trained, not sure today) in a system called SOCP.  Due to the changing nature of Military operations this system has similarities to the LE systems but also adds a dimension.  They do a lot of training on how you may be forced into hand to hand but techniques are taught with the intent of quickly disengaging to draw access a lethal force tool.



Thanks Juany118 for bring this up.  I did not mention the differences, because combatives is also taught to civilians (like I do)  Kelly McCann now teaches civilians as well. I assumed the OP was asking about civilian training.
LEO and military have special considerations that must be incorporated into their training. Like weapon retention.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 6, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> i did say that generalizations are usually not accurate. i understand that.  but we all must admit things like scenario based training was never and is still not part of the official curriculum for many styles.
> 
> 
> let me make a different point
> ...


I don't think rank or lack thereof is a reasonable differentiator between what you're referring to and TMA. There are TMA that observe no rank, at all. The gi is just a handy, sturdy training outfit, and has little impact on the training, itself. I've trained with and without them, and find a few key differences that are adaptable, but they are smaller than the differences between shorts/tshirt and suit/tie. The foreign language, again, is not a key differentiator. I've worked with martial artists who used entirely English terms, and I didn't know what some of them were, so I had to learn some vocabulary. This is the same process I go through when I work with someone who uses Japanese, Korean, or Chinese terms. 

The best differentiator, as I understand it, is a focus on intense, situational training for self-defense, with an abbreviated curriculum to keep people focused on getting to a point of effectiveness more quickly.

That last description can be used to describe the early curriculum within some TMA, as well. To me, "combatives" is just more vocabulary. It only means whatever it's agreed to mean within a given system. In Gracie JJ, it's their basic self-defense starter curriculum. In some schools, it's just a reference to self-defense. In some schools, it's meant to indicate that it's designed for LEO and the like. In other places, it seems to have no meaning, at all, as the stuff being taught appears to be for sport, only.


----------



## Buka (Aug 6, 2016)

According to Quora -

_"Set" has 464 definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Run" runs a distant second, with 396. Rounding out the top ten are "go" with 368, "take" with 343, "stand" with 334, "get" with 289, "turn" with 288, "put" with 268, "fall" with 264, and "strike" with 250. But according to NPR, "run" has 645 definitions._

I think the word _Karate_ and term _Martial Arts_ have a boot-load of definitions as well.
Every single thing I have ever learned goes in the Karate I do and the Karate I teach, regardless of what art it originally came from. Who cares? I don't. My students certainly don't. I don't really know anyone who does. Do you?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 6, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think rank or lack thereof is a reasonable differentiator between what you're referring to and TMA. There are TMA that observe no rank, at all. The gi is just a handy, sturdy training outfit, and has little impact on the training, itself. I've trained with and without them, and find a few key differences that are adaptable, but they are smaller than the differences between shorts/tshirt and suit/tie. The foreign language, again, is not a key differentiator. I've worked with martial artists who used entirely English terms, and I didn't know what some of them were, so I had to learn some vocabulary. This is the same process I go through when I work with someone who uses Japanese, Korean, or Chinese terms.
> 
> The best differentiator, as I understand it, is a focus on intense, situational training for self-defense, with an abbreviated curriculum to keep people focused on getting to a point of effectiveness more quickly.
> 
> That last description can be used to describe the early curriculum within some TMA, as well. To me, "combatives" is just more vocabulary. It only means whatever it's agreed to mean within a given system. In Gracie JJ, it's their basic self-defense starter curriculum. In some schools, it's just a reference to self-defense. In some schools, it's meant to indicate that it's designed for LEO and the like. In other places, it seems to have no meaning, at all, as the stuff being taught appears to be for sport, only.



I dont disagree with what you say.  My post you quoted was a response to the first few posts that inference that "a combatives system"  was a scam of sorts not worth it's weight in salt. What I was getting from the first posts was that combatives was really just karate and should he called a martial art.
I went on a bit of a tangent but my point was that if you have a martial system without a gi or kata or Japanese terms and is not a recognized Japanese or okinawan style it shouldn't be called karate. Thus the American term combatives is a good description and should not be thought less of because of the name.  Combatives is a martial art as much as karate is a form of combatives. ( meanning the are the same thing) The common usage however implies differences.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 7, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> I dont disagree with what you say.  My post you quoted was a response to the first few posts that inference that "a combatives system"  was a scam of sorts not worth it's weight in salt. What I was getting from the first posts was that combatives was really just karate and should he called a martial art.
> I went on a bit of a tangent but my point was that if you have a martial system without a gi or kata or Japanese terms and is not a recognized Japanese or okinawan style it shouldn't be called karate. Thus the American term combatives is a good description and should not be thought less of because of the name.  Combatives is a martial art as much as karate is a form of combatives. ( meanning the are the same thing) The common usage however implies differences.


That is a valid point. I struggle with the term "martial art", myself. Because of my background, I actually typically use it to refer to TMAs that have a focus on defense. I often differentiate from "martial sports", but that's a false dichotomy, since there's a ton of overlap. I also tend to exclude modern martial arts and even some traditional Western arts until someone mentions them and reminds me about them. I have a concept of what a "system" is, and what "combatives" are, but no good distinction I could explain to someone. Because of the larger community that comes together here, I include combative systems in the world of "martial arts" now, because they are likely similar to where some TMA's started from.


----------

