I was reading through several post’s recently that Mick Coup of Core Combatives had made regarding the established “old guard” of WW2 combatives and the practicality of several of their concepts, techniques and ideas.

Now I don’t know Mick personally – and I don’t necessarily agree with everything he has to say (why should I) - but he does seem to speak a hell of a lot of common sense regarding the state of combatives/self defense, etc, and even more so on the state of the combatives community milieu.

I was in the process of writing a similar article for our web-site when he beat me to it and posted a very concise and (IMHO) accurate portrayal of the combatives World.  If you get the chance have a read through them on either the C2 forum or TPI – very good indeed.

Even my good self who is a great admirer of Bob Kasper’s work and of course the GHCA  SWAMP concept couldn’t  fail to note Mick’s point that the W=weapons moves first principle runs counter to actually what the SWAMP concept is trying to say.  I’ve always viewed SWAMP as an allegory for hitting first and hard…nothing simpler than that….but I take Mick’s point completely.

I don’t want to belabour points that were already raised in the original post on the two forums mentioned above, but there are a few other points which I wanted to make that relate directly to what (I believe) was trying to be said.

 

COMBATIVES A TRADEMARK BY ANY OTHER NAME:

Over the past decade there has become several little cliques both in the UK and the USA that seem to think that they had the sole right to use the word or indeed even “train in” combatives.
Now people can believe whatever the hell they want to.  The problem comes when they try and sell it off or (laugh) ” enforce” it through their little groups to a wider and sometimes more unwary audience of newcomers or yes men.

Well….

I can tell you sunshine that I (and people like me) was doing “combatives/CQC/rough house fighting” long before the internet was ever invented and the names of current celebrity instructors and the old and the bold guru’s, or whoever, etc, etc, were rammed down our throat as the font of all knowledge.   It’s bullshit.

The people whom I learned from were former soldiers that had discovered more of the rough style of fighting from working on the docks/building sites/and factories than from any formal combatives class or instructor during military service. 

They knew how to box, wrestle, kick and how to use a cosh and a knife – most from the army (but not all).  But I know for a fact that hardly any of them knew diddly-squat about Fairbairn, Applegate and Sykes or what the knee length was of SMP shorts!  Didn’t seem to affect their ability to “motor” and draw blood when needed. 

Just sayin….

The downside of these cliques is that they have spawned a whole milieu of dogmatic combatives instructors that are intent on making a complete career and living out of it.  DVD’s for this, certificates for that, plus a whole range of on-line learning programs (how the hell do you do that – train on-line!!!) as well as the mystique of their internet persona to sell, SELL, SELL!!! 

Now I know we’ve all got a living to earn but do you have to dishonour these methods by McDojo’ing them to death.  I mean charge a fee for your services, but have a little self restraint in flogging your wares.

The cost, the widespread knowledge of techniques (some involving lethal and illegal weapons) to any Tom, Dick or Harry that waddles in through the door, as well as the whole marketing process and hard sell in order to keep the instructor paying his mortgage – it just seems a little bit….cheap and tacky!

WW2 close combat methods were a specialised and niche market for agents working in the field in a very covert trade.  So what possible use would a middle aged IT engineer have for silent killing and covert weapons?  These people have taken these skills, taken them out of context, re-packaged them and in effect diluted there worth.

I think E.A. Sykes would be rolling in his grave…

 

IN THE KINGDOM OF THE BLIND: THE WW2 RESEARCHER IS KING!!!!

Much is also made of lineage and historical accuracy by some parties, claiming that they have a direct route back to Fairbairn……without any shred of backed up evidence they make these claims which are supported “house of cards” like by their mates and groupies…..most of that seems to be very “vague” and a bit woolly, but even if it was 100% true…..frankly SO WHAT!

Just because you may (or may not) have been taught by an iconic figure, it doesn’t instantly mean you have the same abilities or practical knowledge.  It seems to be they prefer skills by magical osmosis rather than results or practical experience.

Karate Instructor Iain Abernethy succinctly summed up recently what HE believes Lineage should be about by saying;

“Lineage” as a by-product of quality instruction has to be positive. “Lineage” as political control, nepotism, or as means to discourage progress is obviously negative.

I couldn’t agree with that statement more.

As for the history aspect, there is also some very questionable “research” out there that is poorly conducted and based on total hearsay in some cases.  In short these subject matter experts and researchers never let the truth get in the way of a good tale….

In fact I know of one internet researcher whose internet biographies of several WW2 combatives instructors are full of inaccuracies and incorrect information – despite this he stresses that his information is backed up with hard “facts” from reliable sources…..errrr…no! 

Now I know we can all make mistakes (yep even we have in the past….something about a stick method…….!) but these are so far removed from fact and are nothing more than a lot of Chinese whispers in some cases handed down by 3rd or 4th parties. 

These pseudo-historians rely on the fact that the reader either doesn’t know enough (or doesn’t care more likely) about the fine details and is happy enough to just get the bullet points. 

In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king rules…… again.

Over the past several years the MCG has been involved in a mammoth investigation project to track down accurate information related to several noted WW2 combatives instructors and their stories.  Much of what has previously been written we have discovered has been completely misleading.

This lack of professional, impartial and accurate information by certain individuals that have established a “name” for themselves , has done much to damage the name of combatives/close combat history and give a completely askew version of events for future students to work from. 

If they worked for me on my investigative team – I’d sack them on the spot for such tardy work.

Now no one is dismissing these peoples passion for their subject, but passion (no matter how intense) does not necessarily make for good or accurate research and/or writing now does it? No matter how much you add the phrase gutter fighting or CQB into the prose.

If they want to get in touch directly, please do (but be open about it and don’t hide behind an internet non de plume) we’d be happy to discuss this and point you in the right direction.

This should be balanced by saying that there are several excellent researchers out there that I have been in touch with, whose aim is to get to the truth and see through the fog of misinformation that has built up over the past few decades.  These people have assisted us greatly with MCG research projects over recent years.

For a more accurate portrayal of these WW2 combative instructors keep an eye on our Research page on the MCG web-site and our publications (available at all good book shops!!)

 

THE MYTH OF FIGHTING COMBATIVES:

Combatives is nothing new.  It’s just fighting by another name.  Go to any housing estate, rough arsed part of town and there are lads that could wipe the floor with any number of combatives experts that hawk they’re DVD’s on cool looking street web-sites. 

So the first myth that needs to be blown out of the water is that Fairbairn wasn’t the sole point of all fighting, certainly during the second world war there were numerous instructors from different units and military regiments each with their own take on what the fighting men needed to survive in combat.  Some good, some not so.

Fairbairn – even towards the end of his career – was on a journey to discover fighting methods and while he certainly contributed a large part to close quarter combat and defensive tactics, he was by no means the sole source.

During his time with the SMP Fairbairn regularly cross-trained or through secondment to various military and police units studied cutting edge methods (to him),with many of his techniques originating from there!  These techniques were later incorporated into his Defendu, silent killing and instinctive shooting syllabus within the SMP and wartime units respectively.

Ironically enough Fairbairn never seems to make outrageous claims that he in fact was a pioneer of these types of training, whether that was his unarmed or weapons systems. 

That mantle seems to have been taken up (on his behalf it seems) by people over recent years who never met the man, never trained with the man and have no direct quotes from him saying anything remotely like that.  They have in fact taken 2+2 and come up with 7! 

And it is that kind of historical generalisation that ends up muddying the waters for an understanding of both what Fairbairn was about and close quarter combat perceptions as a whole during that period.

 

ALL WW2 COMBATIVES TECHNIQUES WERE EFFECTIVELY USED IN COMBAT:

Well the first thing is that there is no (or at the most very little) evidence of this – despite the hyperbole and rhetoric that is propagated on various web-sites and through (possibly) well meaning individuals. 

Kelly McCann stated in an interview many years ago that a lot of WW2 combatives was just “plain bad bad- jitsu” for the most part.  He may well be right.

From the combat veterans I know and have spoken too – it was all about mashing the enemy with weapons first, then rifle butts, then fists, boots and knuckle dusters. 

So to say that WW2 combatives techniques were never used is incorrect!  Men were just FIGHTING – they didn’t care about were the fighting originated from (back streets of Brooklyn, Liverpool or Shanghai) or what terminology you used, it  was just something they did as part of a job….Oh and to save they’re lives and the lives of friends.

I think what is incorrect is the assumption that every technique from a certain syllabus was “100% battle tested” and is therefore the bee’s knees.  Certainly some were, but probably not as much as you think and certainly not to the levels that are propagated by certain combative fundamentalists and their fan base.

 

THE MYSTERY OF SECRET TECHNIQUES:

I have been asked numerous times about Fairbairn’s and WW2 combatives “secret” techniques?  What were they?  How did they apply them?  Nod, nod…..wink, wink…….

Well here’s the secret….are you ready…come closer…shhh…..
……there ARE no secret techniques! 

Shocking isn’t it. 

There are really no secret methods of dispatching an enemy….shooting, strangulation, knifing, poison……..everything has really been done before from the mad serial killer to the Mafia…I mean jeez there’s only so many viable ways to kill a man – unarmed or with a weapon.  So the 5 finger death touch doesn’t wash I’m afraid.

Frankly who cares if there really were secret techniques – it doesn’t necessarily make them effective or useable.  

But sadly, it doesn’t matter what I write here or even if Fairbairn himself passed a message from beyond the grave – these types wouldn’t let it go and nothing would convince them.  Clearly they would far rather indulge in a bit of mental masturbation.

 

WW2 COMBATIVES: A VIABLE SELF DEFENCE SYSTEM FOR THE MODERN AGE?

The vast majority of close combat methods during the Second World War were aimed at secret agents having to get out of a spot of bother, or for specialist commando styles troops.  In both these cases the aim of the methods was to KILL!  Not self protection as we understand it these days.  

Fundamentally they were “of they’re time.”

Now while many of the concepts (aggressiveness, pre-emption, etc, etc) are certainly transferable, not all the techniques are realistic for protection against a more savvy street attacker from the rough arsed end of town.

The problem seems to be for some combatives groups, is that they take the details from the manuals and notes verbatim and don’t adapt for a modern age. 

What tends to happen then is that the combatives training turns from being about self protection/security training and ends up more akin to being like a re-enactment group complete with F&S commando daggers, and commando field uniform. 

Where is the reality in that!

The problem is that there is no such thing as a combatives community per se – except from the imagination of various people who class a couple of their internet pals as a “community.”  The World is a big place and trying to gather in people who will conform to your opinions is a fool’s errand.  Except perhaps unless you are running a cult…….

It is far to varied and complex for that – each group does their own thing and each individual within that group can also do THEIR own thing, so consequently there is no comprehensive syllabus.  Instead there is a broad brush stroke approach.

And I believe that is how it should be.

The moment you begin to try to grade it, belt it, or have the individuals losing their individuality in order to make something work just because a guru has said that is the way its mean’t to be – well, you’ve just lost the whole point of what to me combatives is all about, and why we try our hardest to differentiate it from the more mainstream martial arts world.

There is are a lot of bad things about the combatives world, as there is in any milieu, but there is also an awful lot of good, so I don’t want people to go away from reading this thinking “sod this combatives lark for a game of soldiers, it sounds crap!

Try it out, look into it, and yes, research it.  I’ve been around this “business” for nigh on 25 years and have seen a lot of bullshit, some good stuff, a lot of idiots and “noddy’s” and met some first class operators that are inspirational. 

It’s a minefield and trying to pick your way across is a tricky business.

Find your own path along the way, but……as for the “myths and Legends” of combatives (from days of yore to the present day) treat them all with a healthy dose of scepticism, as many of the on-line or 3rd hand accounts of these personalities bear no relation to the reality of who or what they are.

And as for the thorny subject of combatives history, surely it is better to have true, correct and factual knowledge rather than a half baked, cloak and dagger novel that is tailored to fit some fantasy perceptions.

Enjoy your journey.