Combative system vs Martial arts

[Uaria]

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

 

[Tez3]

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

 

[Uaria]

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]

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]

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

 

[Red Sun]

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]

Hahaha. Thanks. Ill try to dig more into it

 

[Uaria]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

Double post

 

[hoshin1600]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

A very good karateka by the way.

 

[hoshin1600]

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???