The term "Modern Combatives"

[bushido_man96]

When you hear the term "Modern Combatives," what comes to mind? What is the definition of Modern Combatives to you? Is it different from other kinds of training, like sport or traditional?

[tallgeese]

I've always used it to denote a martial arts system that had been largely synthesised in the modern era for the purposes of self defense application and/or actaul life or death conflicts. (you could stop there really- that's the short version )

It doesn't have historical roots in fuedal societites other than the fact that some of the movements used were probibly first concieved in those eras. Nor does it claim to have an ancient past.

It's progressive in adding movements to it's catalogue of responses if they are effective and can be fit into it's operational framework well.

It might look alot like mma, and those of use who group ourselves in this catagory usually have classes that resemble this, but that's not where it ends. Additoinally, other ranges are sought out for one to be proficient in. Probibly there is work in some small joint manip that is out of bounds for mma competitiors and a major difference is time spent on weapons of common modern usage. Clubs, knives, and gun. These are trainied both offensively and defensively.

It's mindset is a critical element to training. There is no value training for self betterment other than survival of conflict. Anything else develops secondarily. As much training as possible is done "live" so students can learn to flow with conflict early. Sparring is done often and simulation training is a componant.

That's kind of it in a nutshell. Stuff that's well known that I'd offer as examples would be Krav, some JKD outlets these days, a majority of DT programs such as Blauers and such (your milage will vary on these depending on how good and/or comprehensive the program is), and probibly hundres of other schools that train this way but keep a traditional label thru the ma community.

[NightOwl]

Personal image that comes to mind is martial arts training in relation to modern warfare. Much like many old martial arts had weapons training, combative martial arts deal with modern weaponry and tactics with some unarmed H2H as well. That's the image at least

[MMA_Jim]

"Modern Combatives" sounds like a regular catch phrase used by many people in the martial arts business to get students to sign up under the impression they're doing something new, wild, or as these schools prefer to say, "street effective."

My definition of modern combatives is a styles of fighting that isnt taught while holding on to rigid myths, legends, or traditions.

For example, many striking arts have finely tuned areas to hit on the body- developed based on armor technology at the time. Attacking someone under the armpit is kinda pointless when you consider attacking the body or head.

Most styles associated with mixed martial arts are modern combatives. Older, more rigid styles, such as japanese ju jitsu, are not

[tallgeese]

It could be that, the term.

Or, it could just be a desciption. Mordern origin, designed with physical combat in mind. It's in the eye of the beholder and the proof is in what they're doing and it's effectivenss.

I also don't have a problem with the "street effective" marketing label. As long as both are used when they should be. Lot's of time's I've found they are not.

[bushido_man96]

Good points guys.

This one makes me think:

Personal image that comes to mind is martial arts training in relation to modern warfare. Much like many old martial arts had weapons training, combative martial arts deal with modern weaponry and tactics with some unarmed H2H as well. That's the image at least.

So, the idea/definition is going to be dependant on the technology and fighting methods of the day. Today, terrorism is looked as more of a legitimate threat than it was 10 years ago, so it may be taken into account as far as the training goes today.

It kind of makes you wonder if Medieval knights considered the training of the day "modern combatives," doesn't it?

[NightOwl]

Good points guys.

This one makes me think:

Personal image that comes to mind is martial arts training in relation to modern warfare. Much like many old martial arts had weapons training, combative martial arts deal with modern weaponry and tactics with some unarmed H2H as well. That's the image at least.

So, the idea/definition is going to be dependant on the technology and fighting methods of the day. Today, terrorism is looked as more of a legitimate threat than it was 10 years ago, so it may be taken into account as far as the training goes today.

It kind of makes you wonder if Medieval knights considered the training of the day "modern combatives," doesn't it?

Good points. Modern is relative to the time period. If you are using swords, then you are going to train that (although if you are taking the sword I'll take a bow thank you very much! )

With current warfare being in an urban setting, I'd imagine tactics will and are changing. However a civilian modern combative program, if we follow this definition, might be less concerned with counter terrorism and more small arms and knife tactics.