Combatives from the root word COMBAT to fight in direct contact, active fighting between enemies, any fight or struggle. Well, lets see..There is ONE singular glaring absence in the above definition. Notice it? Absolutely NO mention of Fairbairn, Applegate, or Coach Hanley. No mention of Jiu-Jitsu, Boxing, Savate or any member of the Gracie family. No mention of World War Two, the Punic Wars or the Spartans. No mention of Juji-Gatame, a smashing overhand right, an edge of hand blow, or even a good old kick in the butt! Get it? THERE ARE NO SPECIFICS that define what is or isnt so-called COMBATIVES! So why do so many people feel such an overriding need to define combatives into a narrow scope of limited methodology? I know what you do..That Fairbairn stuff. A month ago this same guy thought FAIRBAIRN was simply a decent suntan. Yea, I base my combatives on Applegate..six months ago this dude thought Applegate was the entrance to an orchard! Everybodys an expert. At what exactly? Im not sure even they really know. I wont presume to speak for ANYONE else that uses this term combatives. Actually I wouldnt want to! All I can do is offer a CORRECT semantic observation and proffer my view on what encompasses my study, training and understanding of so-called combatives. If you really do your research and homework you will see that even in manuals describing man to man combat that are CENTURIES old there exists a very COMPREHENSIVE survey and presentations of MANY forms of armed and unarmed combat. ALL in the same manuals! A vast array of weapon skills are shown and even the unarmed combat is a diverse mix of techniques. Before the use of London Prize Ring rules and the Marquis of Queensbury, pugilists used and relied on a great number of different grappling/striking/kicking and gouging methods. Ancient Greek Pankration was a combined system of ALL POWERS combat. The original Koryu Bujutsu of the Samurai included a comprehensive catalog of both armed and unarmed skills. The unarmed combatives of the Japanese Bushi also DIDNT limit scope or method. Grappling was stressed when THAT was the best method of gaining tactical superiority. Striking, kicking and even BITING was resorted to when THAT was deemed the most appropriate method. The Chinese have ALWAYS maintained fully robust systems of combat that included all manner of striking, punching, kicking, throwing, strangling and joint-locking. Original Okinawan Te (Ti) included percussion methods as well as tegumi and tuite. Punch his lungs out if that did the job best. Kick his gonads out the top of his head if THAT worked best. Or grapple him into submission and control OR grapple him into a spine lock and neck break. Whatever was called for and whatever GOT THE JOB AT HAND DONE! The 19th century saw many methods of combined self-defense systems develop in the West. The French combined elements of Chausson/Savate (Basque Zipota as well) with Boxe Anglaise, Parisian Lutte, and even the new Japanese Jiu-Jitsu. The British did the same. The BARTITSU of Barton-Wright is a classic example. In the US a number of self-protection methods became available to the public that combined methods from Boxing and Wrestling. EVEN before any organized systems were presented, men who fought even for sport used virtually ANY device to insure victory. Just read Elliot J. Gorn. The Twentieth century saw even MORE mixed combat systems. It CERTAINLY didnt take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out that in a REAL fight ANYTHING goes. Any and ALL manner of grappling, throttling, kicking, kneeing, butting, biting, punching, gouging, stomping and whatever other methods of mayhem could be employed were ALL FAIR when fair meant the difference between life or death. And it CERTAINLY didnt just end at unarmed fighting! A Gentleman beset upon by a rough and tumble footpad on a lonely and desolate backstreet would feel perfectly JUSTIFIED in running said footpad thru and thru again with his sword cane or bashing his brains in with a lifesaver. Even when the highwayman wasnt even armed with a lowly brickbat. Whats that old saying? Alls fair in love and war. Often its not a matter of whos right, but simply whos LEFT! This IS combatives pure and simple. Whatever WORKS BEST at the time! A sort of mixture of varied fighting skills. HEY..wait a minute! A mixed fighting system? What a NOVEL IDEA! Our next installment will look at combatives from the Russo-Japanese war and World War One thru to our brandy new millennium and all our new age innovations. Should be fun! 2005 www.thetruthaboutselfdefense.com |
