The Equalizer - What role do weapons serve?

[jobo]

I would consider myself a combatives guy and I don't seem to get much crap for it.
I also have two of my own styles, one is traditional and one is combatives. I dont feel I get crap for it.
So maybe it's not about what someone does but how qualified that person is when they claim to be something.

genuine question, in what way are you more qualified than him to teach combatives ?

 

[hoshin1600]

genuine question, in what way are you more qualified than him to teach combatives ?

I dont know him, I can't say.
But to use the word combatives for what you do or teach gives the general MA population a particular image of what you do. If I say I train in karate that illicits a different image than kung fu. While the term combatives may not be a style in and of itself,, it does have a particular image and expectation associated with it. My post was not passing judgment as much as stating that members here seem to feel his posts and content are not matching with the label of being a combatives instructor.

 

[Tenshin]

Combatives to some people is a general term but to others a very specific meaning, I think it is like saying Grappling or Submission Grappling.
When I think of Combatives I think of guys doing Defendu, Defense lab, Keysi, Urban combatives, Sami those type of RBSD groups.

Most guys teaching Combatives deal in law enforcement, military, security work, or some sort of reality base experience.
Usually if you are offering a course in teaching this, you will speak about your background, credentials, affiliation, rank, what makes your course and system better or different
than the other guys, all this is marketing and branding.


Frankly if someone wants to create their own system, art I have no problem as it stands on its own merit in regards to success or failure,
but Martial artists that are experience are going to scrutinize what is being offered.

 

[Taipan]

I would consider myself a combatives guy and I don't seem to get much crap for it.
I also have two of my own styles, one is traditional and one is combatives. I dont feel I get crap for it.
So maybe it's not about what someone does but how qualified that person is when they claim to be something.

I'm iterested in your two styles. What are they and what are YOUR qualifications?

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

Just to chime in, every experience I've had with "combatives" has been a military system. I've trained as a first level instructor of MACP (Modern Army Combatives Program- US Army), Security Forces Combatives (USAF), and SERE Combatives (also USAF). Now, I'm pretty critical of how the military generally implements combatives programs, because more often than not you get a few days of training, and then an annual refresher... And that's it. Any experienced martial artists knows that that is not enough to develop true proficiency, let alone muscle memory.

Anyway, I don't have a dog in the fight of whether or not you want to create a system of combatives, but know that they are usually associated with the military, and are usually pitched as one-shot or otherwise short-term training solutions.

Edit: I'm a MACP instructor (or was... That certificate may be expired. Not sure how the Army does things). I am NOT a SERE or Security Forces Combatives instructor.

 

[jobo]

I dont know him, I can't say.
But to use the word combatives for what you do or teach gives the general MA population a particular image of what you do. If I say I train in karate that illicits a different image than kung fu. While the term combatives may not be a style in and of itself,, it does have a particular image and expectation associated with it. My post was not passing judgment as much as stating that members here seem to feel his posts and content are not matching with the label of being a combatives instructor.

that really didnt answer my question.

so what does a combatives instructor label require ?

 

[CB Jones]

So I watched some of your nunchaku videos which left me a little confused

You claim to be a combatives style....but your nunchaku videos seem to be more about tricks and flash other than how to actaully use them in combat.

I would expect a combatives site to focus more on using heavier hardwood nunchaku along with using the lower or mid grip. Plus more instruction on the actual use of them in fighting instead of the flashy handrolls and transitions.

 

[hoshin1600]

that really didnt answer my question.

so what does a combatives instructor label require ?

Jobo im not going to get pulled into a straw man argument. that seems to be your MO
any one can claim anything they like. call your self a 15th degree black belt Grand Poohbah of the Order of the Water Buffalo.
but i did answer your question on what makes me more qualified... and i quote
"I dont know"

 

[Taipan]

So I watched some of your nunchaku videos which left me a little confused

You claim to be a combatives style....but your nunchaku videos seem to be more about tricks and flash other than how to actaully use them in combat.

I would expect a combatives site to focus more on using heavier hardwood nunchaku along with using the lower or mid grip. Plus more instruction on the actual use of them in fighting instead of the flashy handrolls and transitions.

I am a practitioner of American Nunchaku as found by Grandmaster Burke. The Nunchuck I teach is not part of the Total Combatives curriculum, but is the curriculum of the American Nunchaku style.

I do agree that the techniques are for flow and not for fighting.

I teach rope dart and Nunchucks separately from my other curriculum.

 

[jobo]

Jobo im not going to get pulled into a straw man argument. that seems to be your MO
any one can claim anything they like. call your self a 15th degree black belt Grand Poohbah of the Order of the Water Buffalo.
but i did answer your question on what makes me more qualified... and i quote
"I dont know"

i dont know isnt answering a question, i tried that in a french exam, it didnt go down well, unless the question is ,, do you know? which it wasnt,

so i think people are unnecessarily giving him a hard time, you disagreed, why are you disagreeing?
.nb i dont know isnt a reasonable answer

 

[hoshin1600]

i dont know isnt answering a question, i tried that in a french exam, it didnt go down well, unless the question is ,, do you know? which it wasnt,

so i think people are unnecessarily giving him a hard time, you disagreed, why are you disagreeing?
.nb i dont know isnt a reasonable answer

I dont know, could have been a good answer if you said it in a perfect French accent.
Let me rephrase then. You asked " what makes me more qualified to teach combatives?" I didn't say I was. But as was pointed out in another thread, I am not asking for feedback or a critique on my blog and web page.
I think the only reason he IS getting a hard time is exactly because he asked for it.

 

[CB Jones]

I am a practitioner of American Nunchaku as found by Grandmaster Burke. The Nunchuck I teach is not part of the Total Combatives curriculum, but is the curriculum of the American Nunchaku style.

I do agree that the techniques are for flow and not for fighting.

I teach rope dart and Nunchucks separately from my other curriculum.

Ok do you see how this is confusing and even misleading.

You market yourself as a combatives course with weapons training but the weapons you are trained in (nunchaku and rope dart) arent part of the combatives course. But in your videos you show yourself training with them.

The nunchaku and rope dart videos have a section on your combatives channel and even have your total combatives logo on them. Yet, the rechniques are not suited for use in combat and are a separate course....

 

[CB Jones]

Also, if you are going to charge people for this course...I would suggest you provide a good biography and resume of you and your training.

 

[Taipan]

Ok do you see how this is confusing and even misleading.

You market yourself as a combatives course with weapons training but the weapons you are trained in (nunchaku and rope dart) arent part of the combatives course. But in your videos you show yourself training with them.

The nunchaku and rope dart videos have a section on your combatives channel and even have your total combatives logo on them. Yet, the rechniques are not suited for use in combat and are a separate course....

They are on the channel and have the logo because they are taught by the same instructor and in the same school as the other course. They are optional free courses for my students that have interests in those weapons.

And tgere is weapons training in the combatives course, but traditional weapons are not involved. Those would be gun, knife, mace, and expandable baton.

 

[Taipan]

Also, if you are going to charge people for this course...I would suggest you provide a good biography and resume of you and your training.

Thanks!

I plan to soon.

 

[CB Jones]

They are on the channel and have the logo because they are taught by the same instructor and in the same school as the other course. They are optional free courses for my students that have interests in those weapons.

And tgere is weapons training in the combatives course, but traditional weapons are not involved. Those would be gun, knife, mace, and expandable baton.

I would separate the two then so there isn't any confusion.

One channel for combatives and the other channel for nunchaku and rope dart courses. You can always provide a link to the other on each site.

 

[Taipan]

Comment withdrawn

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I am a practitioner of American Nunchaku as found by Grandmaster Burke. The Nunchuck I teach is not part of the Total Combatives curriculum, but is the curriculum of the American Nunchaku style.

I do agree that the techniques are for flow and not for fighting.

I teach rope dart and Nunchucks separately from my other curriculum.

They are on the channel and have the logo because they are taught by the same instructor and in the same school as the other course. They are optional free courses for my students that have interests in those weapons.

And tgere is weapons training in the combatives course, but traditional weapons are not involved. Those would be gun, knife, mace, and expandable baton.

I’d agree with C.B. Jones that you need to make a distinction on your site between weapon training you are offering for combatives vs performance based weapon twirling. The former should be based on effectiveness in fighting. The latter is essentially the equivalent of majorette baton twirling, just more socially acceptable for guys. (That’s not really a criticism. Baton twirling is fun and involves genuine skill and guys should be able to be majorettes. It’s just important not to confuse it with actual weapon usage.)

I haven’t seen any of your material on firearms or mace. For all I know you are totally knowledgeable in those areas. However the weapon use you show in the video does not reflect understanding of effective combative use of those weapons.

Obviously, weapons are a major force multiplier, so even a completely untrained person could potentially inflict injury or even death just by waving their weapon around randomly. By “effective combative use”, I mean the ability to deploy a weapon, inflict the maximum damage with the minimum effort, while making it as hard as possible for an armed opponent to effectively attack you with their own weapon. I know you are limited in the specifics of what you can show by demonstrating solo, but your grips, your body mechanics, your stances, the paths of your swings, etc, are not in line with that sort of combative use.

 

[Taipan]

I’d agree with C.B. Jones that you need to make a distinction on your site between weapon training you are offering for combatives vs performance based weapon twirling. The former should be based on effectiveness in fighting. The latter is essentially the equivalent of majorette baton twirling, just more socially acceptable for guys. (That’s not really a criticism. Baton twirling is fun and involves genuine skill and guys should be able to be majorettes. It’s just important not to confuse it with actual weapon usage.)

I haven’t seen any of your material on firearms or mace. For all I know you are totally knowledgeable in those areas. However the weapon use you show in the video does not reflect understanding of effective combative use of those weapons.

Obviously, weapons are a major force multiplier, so even a completely untrained person could potentially inflict injury or even death just by waving their weapon around randomly. By “effective combative use”, I mean the ability to deploy a weapon, inflict the maximum damage with the minimum effort, while making it as hard as possible for an armed opponent to effectively attack you with their own weapon. I know you are limited in the specifics of what you can show by demonstrating solo, but your grips, your body mechanics, your stances, the paths of your swings, etc, are not in line with that sort of combative use.

I would agree with the last statment.

Not sure if I like the baton twirling comparison though! Lol!

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I would agree with the last statment.

Not sure if I like the baton twirling comparison though! Lol!

That’s just societal programming. Twirling stuff is fun, whether it’s majorette batons or antique weapons. When I was a kid, my little sister had a baton (don’t remember what for, she wasn’t a majorette) and it was fun trying to learn how to twirl it. When I got my first nunchaku, I learned the same Bruce Lee movie style twirling as everybody else, and it was fun in the same kind of way.