Modern Combatives influenced too much by Martial Arts?

Hi Den,

Regarding WW2 Combatives and Modern Combatives, how much has Modern Combatives Strayed away from the WW2 SOE Techniques, and Commando System? Obviously Fairbairns Police Style was heavily influenced by Jutjusu and Kano's Judo. Atemi-waza.

For example Mccanns ground fighting and stick fighting are far from simple and easy to do or remember. I believe as far as Stick Fighting goes maybe Bruce Tegner has something to offer in the way of combatives here. His book Defense Tactics for Law Enforcement has simple and effective stick techniques devised for police officers, similar stuff to Applegates stick use in kill or get killed.

As for ground fighting maybe we need to develope more street effective combative methods and dispose of the sportlike techniques. To hurt an attacker quickly as possible to make escape possible.

Found this quote on the internet: (One of the things that most guys don't realize about the whole OSS/SOE "program" is that there are MANY "tangental" methods and techniques that will probably never come to light in the "public" domain.

Certainly many of the methods employed and developed by SOE in particular were NEVER written down in "syllabus" form. What paperwork exists really only scratches the surface.) My brother trained with some SF Army guys in the late 60s and showed me 1 technique that i haven't seen in any book on combatives.

Another example is mccanns combative video series, the 1999 edition of the US Marine Combative book looks identical to mccanns ground fighting, which is heavily influenced by BJJ.


James

Regarding WW2 Combatives and Modern Combatives, how much has Modern Combatives Strayed away from the WW2 SOE Techniques, and Commando System? Obviously Fairbairns Police Style was heavily influenced by Jutjusu and Kano's Judo. Atemi-waza.

Current combatives may have strayed due to the following.
a] the wartime syllabus has to be adapted to generic, civilian self-protection.
b] Many self defence instructors teach theory not reality. They use TMA rather than experience.
The number of guys teaching from real experience, like Peter Consterdine, Nick Hughes, John Skillen and John Brawn are, relatively, rare.

For example Mccanns ground fighting and stick fighting are far from simple and easy to do or remember. I believe as far as Stick Fighting goes maybe Bruce Tegner has something to offer in the way of combatives here. His book Defense Tactics for Law Enforcement has simple and effective stick techniques devised for police officers, similar stuff to Applegates stick use in kill or get killed.

I agree that the ground/stick fighting material demonstrated by Grover/McCann on his videos is too complicated. The rest of his program is excellent.
I don't rate Tegner as a worthwhile source.

As for ground fighting maybe we need to develope more street effective combative methods and dispose of the sportlike techniques. To hurt an attacker quickly as possible to make escape possible.

That's exactly what we cover in our Combatives-3 Program.

Certainly many of the methods employed and developed by SOE in particular were NEVER written down in "syllabus" form. What paperwork exists really only scratches the surface.) My brother trained with some SF Army guys in the late 60s and showed me 1 technique that i haven't seen in any book on combatives.

Many WW-2 manuals are really aide-memoires, comparable to a handout package on a seminar. Indeed, much material isn't included.
Mika did a lot a research using former OSS contacts, and presented the results of his studies as practical lessons at Camp Get Tough
Cheers,
Den

Thanks Den,

Regarding the SOE Techniques i believe that they also used lots of nasty little weapons, some of which fairbairn demos in the OSS Video.

AWROLOGY, and Wesley Browns US NAVY hand to hand video and book goes into a fair amount of combative grappling but mostly from a standing position to take out the enemy.

James

Dear James.
I think I understand your question if Modern combatives may be too much influenced by MA.
My first question is: What do you consider as Modern Combatives? Is it just combatives of 2007, or do you consider combatives of the 40’ties as Modern Combatives as well?

I am agree with you that Fairbairn’s systems was heavy influenced by ju-jitsu, but a lot of the WWII combative sources were as well influenced by ju-jitsu in high degree, as the excellent manuals Arwrology by Perrigard and Hand-to-hand combat by Wesley Brown. To say it a bit provoking: They are to me nothing more than pure traditional ju-jitsu. Nothing more, nothing less. But they have as well a combative mindset.

My question is:
Is it possible to have combatives that isn’t heavy influenced MA?
I don’t think so. Because all the modern combatives traces are going back to the martial arts, but the regular MA training has forgotten the combative mindset.
Is it a problem that combatives is influenced by MA?
I don’t think so either, because it all comes down to:
What works for you in real life might be considered as combatives.
Remember that people like: Fairbairn, O’Neill, Biddle, W. Brown, Perrigard, Underwood and Nelson had their background and training from martial arts.

The famous samurai Musashi said something like:
Do not forget the real way, when you are learning indoor techniques.

Each of us has to ask our selves:
Where is your combative training meant to be in use?
Is it as a regular civilian?
Is it in a door of a nightclub?
Is it at a mental hospital?
Is it as a regular police officer?
Is it as an undercover police officer?
Is it as a watchman?
Is it as an infantry soldier?
Is it as an undercover military agent?

It all comes down to:
Under what circumstances is your combatives meant to be in use?
What I am trying to say is: When your training may be combative for one special occasion, it may not be combative in another. The training for a regular police officer is probably not the right training for an infantry soldier.

But, you have a point if you are talking about combatives clubs that are in danger doing the same error as MA clubs. When training stylised and trying to cover every eventualities during a fixed attack with fixed defences, and as well putting too much attention on sports-grappling.

When looking at the US Army H-2-H manual from 1999, you may as well say that combatives is in danger becoming a martial sport.

Kindest regards
Ronny

Sorry Den & James,

I didn't realise before now. That James' question was adressed directly to you Den.

I have to appologise to you both, and I didn't meant to be rude.

Kindest Regards R

Hey Roza,

Great answers i think if you look at the us marine corps 1999 manual, you'll see that its has a lot of restraints and non-lethal techniques has well as bjj ground techniques.

I prefer the WW2 SOE methods myself, as i prefer its simple strikes, etc.

Hand to Hand Combat in my view, is designed to kill as quickly as possible, that was the idea behind the WW2 system, i just think to many techniques are sport techniques not combative. Of course you just cant go around using lethal techniques on people either. I lot of modern combatives lets say after WW2 have to many techniques that have not been used in LIVE combat.

James

Ronny,
No problem, this is a forum, where we welcome input and views on the threads.
Great response, many good points.
Cheers,
Den