The Interface Between MMA and Combatives

[Ian]

A question for people who are involved in the security industry:

If your focus is combatives and real-world self offense, what would you recommend as a good training mix between combatives and mma (to develop attributes)?

Something like 60-40, 70-30?

If you're not into combatives, please refrain from replying.

Cheers

[middleway]

I am hoping to compete in MMA in a couple of months. I would say 70 - 30 is a good mix.

MMA as in the sport orientated fighting brings a great amount to the party. You have resistant determined attackers, Guys with excellent conditioning and drive and above all very good fighting skills ... a lot of good points. But it is easy to get stuck in the Sport fighting mindset and combative's needs to consider situation, verbal, multiple opponents, Weapons etc etc in order to really get to the heart of the matter.

cheers
Chris

[yeniseri]

A question for people who are involved in the security industry:

If your focus is combatives and real-world self offense, what would you recommend as a good training mix between combatives and mma (to develop attributes)?

If you're not into combatives, please refrain from replying.

Cheers

AT some point, combatives and MMA do intersect (concept of risk management/mitigation) but that really happens. When it does escalate, neither work.
Security detail members (no 1, no 2, etc) have different functions. As in the below example, there was no one between the President and the 'trickster. At this stage, no amount of combatives would be useful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52WljwDGNSQ

One would not want to 'tussle' with the assailant so effectively using techniques as interception until a weapon can be utilized!
Within the past few years, there has been impetus to have more soldiers, sailors and Marines become more adept in combatives as part of training so it does have value. Also, I have seen many more UFC military MMA guys taking part in these exhibitions so it has its place.

Here's another CQC stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYTfb1gJf0Q

[Chris McKinley]

FWIW, I thought I'd offer a perspective that isn't based in armchair speculation. The OP question is flawed, IMO, in that the reality is much more like a Venn diagram than a discreet fractional ratio, and the needs of the training are always fluid. There are areas of overlap, even identical training practices, without there being full redundancy. There is no formula to it and any such question proves ultimately meaningless, since the 'mix' of training that is appropriate today may have nothing to do with what is ideal tomorrow. Missions and the units and individual personnel required to complete them vary wildly, so there is never any one training mix that remains fixed from one situation to the next.

Further, both approaches to training are vulnerable to being taken out of context. For example, combatives usually refers to empty hand CQB tactics, especially to non-professionals. However, such isn't necessarily the case. In the professional training world, combatives are trained with the full complement of relevant weapon systems, body gear, environmental weapons/obstacles, etc., and is trained both in and out of typical modes of transport and a variety of environments and conditions. Even adjusting for all of those factors, a highly-trained operative with a track record of proven field effectiveness with world-class combative capability probably isn't going to last more than a couple of rounds at maximum in a cage fight against a professional MMA fighter. Likewise, MMA training is inherently out-of-context, at least as it relates to the professional, and not only represents exclusively weaponless combat (a circumstance which is grossly unrealistic under most professional circumstances), but is also constrained by a purely less-than-lethal response matrix (also grossly unrealistic from a professional standpoint). It artificially presupposes a one-on-one combative scenario in which both combatants are equally aware that combat is imminent, the combat begins and ends with a specific cue, and there is essentially no running awareness of the changing reality of the combative environment, all of which is dangerously unrealistic to the professional. If some MMA expert decides he's ready for real combat because he's a cage-fighting badass, he'd better stay the hell away from any team of mine because that asshole is going to get not just himself, but all of us killed.

[liokault]

FWIW, I thought I'd offer a perspective that isn't based in armchair speculation. The OP question is flawed, IMO, in that the reality is much more like a Venn diagram than a discreet fractional ratio, and the needs of the training are always fluid. There are areas of overlap, even identical training practices, without there being full redundancy. There is no formula to it and any such question proves ultimately meaningless, since the 'mix' of training that is appropriate today may have nothing to do with what is ideal tomorrow. Missions and the units and individual personnel required to complete them vary wildly, so there is never any one training mix that remains fixed from one situation to the next.

Further, both approaches to training are vulnerable to being taken out of context. For example, combatives usually refers to empty hand CQB tactics, especially to non-professionals. However, such isn't necessarily the case. In the professional training world, combatives are trained with the full complement of relevant weapon systems, body gear, environmental weapons/obstacles, etc., and is trained both in and out of typical modes of transport and a variety of environments and conditions. Even adjusting for all of those factors, a highly-trained operative with a track record of proven field effectiveness with world-class combative capability probably isn't going to last more than a couple of rounds at maximum in a cage fight against a professional MMA fighter. Likewise, MMA training is inherently out-of-context, at least as it relates to the professional, and not only represents exclusively weaponless combat (a circumstance which is grossly unrealistic under most professional circumstances), but is also constrained by a purely less-than-lethal response matrix (also grossly unrealistic from a professional standpoint). It artificially presupposes a one-on-one combative scenario in which both combatants are equally aware that combat is imminent, the combat begins and ends with a specific cue, and there is essentially no running awareness of the changing reality of the combative environment, all of which is dangerously unrealistic to the professional. If some MMA expert decides he's ready for real combat because he's a cage-fighting badass, he'd better stay the hell away from any team of mine because that asshole is going to get not just himself, but all of us killed.

So to sum up, 40/60 then.

[Chris McKinley]

Yeah, 'sabout right.

[daniel pfister]

FWIW, I thought I'd offer a perspective that isn't based in armchair speculation. The OP question is flawed, IMO, in that the reality is much more like a Venn diagram than a discreet fractional ratio, and the needs of the training are always fluid. There are areas of overlap, even identical training practices, without there being full redundancy. There is no formula to it and any such question proves ultimately meaningless, since the 'mix' of training that is appropriate today may have nothing to do with what is ideal tomorrow. Missions and the units and individual personnel required to complete them vary wildly, so there is never any one training mix that remains fixed from one situation to the next.

Further, both approaches to training are vulnerable to being taken out of context. For example, combatives usually refers to empty hand CQB tactics, especially to non-professionals. However, such isn't necessarily the case. In the professional training world, combatives are trained with the full complement of relevant weapon systems, body gear, environmental weapons/obstacles, etc., and is trained both in and out of typical modes of transport and a variety of environments and conditions. Even adjusting for all of those factors, a highly-trained operative with a track record of proven field effectiveness with world-class combative capability probably isn't going to last more than a couple of rounds at maximum in a cage fight against a professional MMA fighter. Likewise, MMA training is inherently out-of-context, at least as it relates to the professional, and not only represents exclusively weaponless combat (a circumstance which is grossly unrealistic under most professional circumstances), but is also constrained by a purely less-than-lethal response matrix (also grossly unrealistic from a professional standpoint). It artificially presupposes a one-on-one combative scenario in which both combatants are equally aware that combat is imminent, the combat begins and ends with a specific cue, and there is essentially no running awareness of the changing reality of the combative environment, all of which is dangerously unrealistic to the professional. If some MMA expert decides he's ready for real combat because he's a cage-fighting badass, he'd better stay the hell away from any team of mine because that asshole is going to get not just himself, but all of us killed.

So to sum up, 40/60 then.

+1

[Andy_S]

For attributes: MMA
For technique: combatives.

Arguably, attributes are more important than techniques...as noted by the Iron Duke himself, to wit:
"The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton."*

(*ie not on the shooting range at Aldershot)

RE:
If you're not into combatives, please refrain from replying.

Sorry mate, this is a CMA forum.

SNIP
If some MMA expert decides he's ready for real combat because he's a cage-fighting badass, he'd better stay the hell away from any team of mine because that asshole is going to get not just himself, but all of us killed.
SNIP

Interesting.

The ancient Greeks considered Pankration athletes to be useless in the battle line, and General Qi Qi-guang, who formalized the late Ming Chinese "combatives" syllabus (at a time when cold weapons dominated the battle space) thought that village boxing masters (ie the kind of gongfu experts mythologized on RSF) were equally useless in warfare.

OTOH, the British Army of the 19th century strongly emphasized sporting prowess in its young, front-line officers, and the current US Army combatives curriculum is VERY heavily based on BJJ, with a significant ground-fighting component, and which a lot of young GIs love to compete against one another with.

Perhaps someone would care to explain what may be behind this divergence of ancient and modern combat opinion...?

[middleway]

So to sum up, 40/60 then.

From my POV, if i devoted 60% of the time i have to MMA format combat there wouldn't be the time to devote to all of the other aspects that need to be covered in the course. For Civies sure i think 40/60 or 50/50 could be a good mix. But i think Attributes can certainly be trained in a non co-operative but also non MMA environment. I dont care how much MMA you do ... it wont help a damn when your clearing a building at dusk and have to restrain aggressive civvies while retaining your weapons, or if your on a CP task in a hostile environment.

Perhaps someone would care to explain what may be behind this divergence of ancient and modern combat opinion...?

I think the main difference is that there your talking about Army combat training which tends to be quite different to Int Sec, Close Protection or SF requirements. Most of the time the 'combative's' trained in standard army units and even to an extent elite units like the Royal Marines or Para's tends to be focused more towards combat conditioning and developing a combative mindset more than building useful CQB attributes.

Here is a bit of CQB from the Kiwi SAS. I highly doubt anything of importance is shown in how they train this side to their skillset.



It is worth remembering that there are professionals out there who have been doing the job longer than MMA has been around ... and doing it very very well.

cheers

[Ian]

What a lot of assumptions.

FWIW, I thought I'd offer a perspective that isn't based in armchair speculation. The OP question is flawed, IMO, in that the reality is much more like a Venn diagram than a discreet fractional ratio, and the needs of the training are always fluid. There are areas of overlap, even identical training practices, without there being full redundancy. There is no formula to it and any such question proves ultimately meaningless, since the 'mix' of training that is appropriate today may have nothing to do with what is ideal tomorrow. Missions and the units and individual personnel required to complete them vary wildly, so there is never any one training mix that remains fixed from one situation to the next.

I'm obviously not asking for a formula.

If you'd prefer to view it as a Venn diagram, then I'll rephrase the original question – what's the overlap between MMA and combatives? How can MMA training enhance your attributes if combatives is your focus?

Further, both approaches to training are vulnerable to being taken out of context. For example, combatives usually refers to empty hand CQB tactics, especially to non-professionals. However, such isn't necessarily the case. In the professional training world, combatives are trained with the full complement of relevant weapon systems, body gear, environmental weapons/obstacles, etc., and is trained both in and out of typical modes of transport and a variety of environments and conditions.

Let's say I'm talking about combatives for civilians, dealing with predatory violence with a high likelihood of multiple attackers/weapons. Soft skills, empty hand, weapons, tactics and strategies, use of the environment, tactical first aid, defensive driving.

Even adjusting for all of those factors, a highly-trained operative with a track record of proven field effectiveness with world-class combative capability probably isn't going to last more than a couple of rounds at maximum in a cage fight against a professional MMA fighter. Likewise, MMA training is inherently out-of-context, at least as it relates to the professional, and not only represents exclusively weaponless combat (a circumstance which is grossly unrealistic under most professional circumstances), but is also constrained by a purely less-than-lethal response matrix (also grossly unrealistic from a professional standpoint).

I never suggested this, nor have I ever, in my posting history.

It artificially presupposes a one-on-one combative scenario in which both combatants are equally aware that combat is imminent, the combat begins and ends with a specific cue, and there is essentially no running awareness of the changing reality of the combative environment, all of which is dangerously unrealistic to the professional. If some MMA expert decides he's ready for real combat because he's a cage-fighting badass, he'd better stay the hell away from any team of mine because that asshole is going to get not just himself, but all of us killed.

20:45 in this video sums it up nicely.



Hopefully we can discuss the original question now.

[Chris McKinley]

Ian,

I have made no assumptions whatsoever. I thought it was quite clear in your OP that you were calling for a specific formulaic ratio between MMA and combatives training. If I have read that wrong, you have my apologies. Either way, no offense was meant. In fact, I thought that since I had not addressed you specifically in my response that it was clear that I was also not addressing you exclusively, but addressing the topic with the whole thread readership in mind, and addressing points at large that are often made with respect to this topic. Some of my points were not, therefore, meant as specific refutations of any of your statements specifically. Your topic is a very good one, and your most recent questions are extremely practical and thought-provoking.

Both Andy and Chris seem to still be referring to a ratio, of whatever value. A big part of my previous points was to make clear that no such ratio is even conceptually possible, even if the training needs weren't variable. This is because we are dealing with two concepts that are not only not discreetly distinct from one another, in many cases, their practices are identical, thus my previous reference to a Venn diagram as a more accurate model of what we're discussing. It would be impossible to determine which approach to credit with aspects they each share identically. Just as not all MMA programs are the same, neither are all combatives programs, to be quite certain. For instance, combatives isn't exclusively about empty-hand training between only two combatants, as I mentioned before. However, where it is, many programs regularly employ bag and pad work identical to that used in many MMA programs. A large percentage of the actual combat techniques employed can be identical as well. Another point worth mentioning is that MMA isn't all about attributes; a large percentage of the work is very much geared toward specific combative techniques. Likewise, while perhaps not their mainstay, many good combatives programs also take a break from the techniques to develop general attributes with regularity. IOW, it's not that cut-and-dried. In the end, it's about getting the necessary training that fits your needs and objectives, from whichever approach it originates.

Another error I see being propagated is that of equating fitness to MMA training. That's not to imply that there are hordes of sluggards out there representing MMA; there generally are not. However, while MMA training can certainly provide increased fitness, it is by no means the only method of obtaining it, nor is it axiomatically true that the level of fitness it does provide is necessarily superior to other training modalities. Let me make very clear, you can have someone who is exclusively a combatives participant who is in a state of vastly superior fitness to the average MMA practitioner, and of course, vice versa. To proceed with the conversation such that if you want fighting techniques, you need to incorporate combatives, and if you want fitness, you need to incorporate MMA would be to grossly oversimplify things to the point of error.

Chris points out some of the realities of the differences between various combatives programs to good effect. Often, as a combatives instructor, how much work is done on attributes (and still other factors) quite often has to do with how much time is available to work with the given set of trainees. Just as often, it has to do with the purpose of the given unit and even what the parameters for a particular mission might be. Without going into too much detail, adjunct CQB training for top-tier units is never, ever one-size-fits-all. That's for basic training and preliminary school for whatever unit is in question.

Let's say I'm talking about combatives for civilians, dealing with predatory violence with a high likelihood of multiple attackers/weapons. Soft skills, empty hand, weapons, tactics and strategies, use of the environment, tactical first aid, defensive driving.

I'd say that's a damned good assessment of the skills necessary for real-world application. You can always add more stuff to it, especially for professional needs, but a civilian who had obtained high-quality training in each of those areas and had gained demonstrable competence in each of them would have a serious set of useful skills and would have a significant advantage over not just other average civilians, but just as much over most martial arts instructors out there.

Your clip of Lee Morrison was indeed quite salient and straightforward. I also like that the conversation can happen today without issues of pride, competition, or machismo between various approaches. MMA has matured past its early days of insecurity-based bashing and is very comfortable with what it is, what it purports to be, and how successfully it achieves it.

[Tom]

Perhaps someone would care to explain what may be behind this divergence of ancient and modern combat opinion...?

I think the main difference is that there your talking about Army combat training which tends to be quite different to Int Sec, Close Protection or SF requirements. Most of the time the 'combative's' trained in standard army units and even to an extent elite units like the Royal Marines or Para's tends to be focused more towards combat conditioning and developing a combative mindset more than building useful CQB attributes.

+1

[Tom]

Both Andy and Chris seem to still be referring to a ratio, of whatever value. A big part of my previous points was to make clear that no such ratio is even conceptually possible, even if the training needs weren't variable. This is because we are dealing with two concepts that are not only not discreetly distinct from one another, in many cases, their practices are identical, thus my previous reference to a Venn diagram as a more accurate model of what we're discussing. It would be impossible to determine which approach to credit with aspects they each share identically. Just as not all MMA programs are the same, neither are all combatives programs, to be quite certain. For instance, combatives isn't exclusively about empty-hand training between only two combatants, as I mentioned before. However, where it is, many programs regularly employ bag and pad work identical to that used in many MMA programs. A large percentage of the actual combat techniques employed can be identical as well. Another point worth mentioning is that MMA isn't all about attributes; a large percentage of the work is very much geared toward specific combative techniques. Likewise, while perhaps not their mainstay, many good combatives programs also take a break from the techniques to develop general attributes with regularity. IOW, it's not that cut-and-dried. In the end, it's about getting the necessary training that fits your needs and objectives, from whichever approach it originates.

Another error I see being propagated is that of equating fitness to MMA training. That's not to imply that there are hordes of sluggards out there representing MMA; there generally are not. However, while MMA training can certainly provide increased fitness, it is by no means the only method of obtaining it, nor is it axiomatically true that the level of fitness it does provide is necessarily superior to other training modalities. Let me make very clear, you can have someone who is exclusively a combatives participant who is in a state of vastly superior fitness to the average MMA practitioner, and of course, vice versa. To proceed with the conversation such that if you want fighting techniques, you need to incorporate combatives, and if you want fitness, you need to incorporate MMA would be to grossly oversimplify things to the point of error.

Chris points out some of the realities of the differences between various combatives programs to good effect. Often, as a combatives instructor, how much work is done on attributes (and still other factors) quite often has to do with how much time is available to work with the given set of trainees. Just as often, it has to do with the purpose of the given unit and even what the parameters for a particular mission might be. Without going into too much detail, adjunct CQB training for top-tier units is never, ever one-size-fits-all. That's for basic training and preliminary school for whatever unit is in question.

Let's say I'm talking about combatives for civilians, dealing with predatory violence with a high likelihood of multiple attackers/weapons. Soft skills, empty hand, weapons, tactics and strategies, use of the environment, tactical first aid, defensive driving.

I'd say that's a damned good assessment of the skills necessary for real-world application. You can always add more stuff to it, especially for professional needs, but a civilian who had obtained high-quality training in each of those areas and had gained demonstrable competence in each of them would have a serious set of useful skills and would have a significant advantage over not just other average civilians, but just as much over most martial arts instructors out there.

Nicely stated, worth repeating.

[yeniseri]

A question for people who are involved in the security industry:

If your focus is combatives and real-world self offense, what would you recommend as a good training mix between combatives and mma (to develop attributes)?

Something like 60-40, 70-30?

If you're not into combatives, please refrain from replying.

Cheers

Let me try this again?
1. MMA: sport, fitness, trophy, great entertainment
2. Combatives: usually military; targeted training, reaction time, life death scenarious, specific

As previously stated, they intersect at a conditioning phase based on baisc principles of readiness, ability to react. MMA generally dictates that one cannot hit certain areas, etc for the safety of all concerned. Military combatives is using all the tools but it is usually secondary or terciary in the performance of the mission. One starts with weapons of choice and is the MO of the mission. To my knowledge, no one goes into a firefight weaponless, whether M-4, M16, AK, etc. That just isn't the game! The concepts of principles of MMA isn't MMA only since othes arts use variations but MMA tends to apply all (hands, foot, etc) within a sports format.
Hasn't anyone seen the al Qaeda TKD public release propaganda video(s)? TKD training (well, it looks like TKD with the kicking stuff) is well profiled but they use IEDs/VBIED as their weapons fo chice. So much for TKD and the video recuritment effort!

[river rider]

CM's points make a lot of sense to me. When I was on the police dept we had, and hired, a number of people with a decent amount of experience in a variety of MAs (MMA had not been "invented" yet). Some were damn good at their discipline. It was rarely of much use to them when the shit hit the fan, and there were often hidden liabilities in their skill sets. It was all too out of context with their training, so that advantages in physical skill were negated by situational facts, and by ingrained assumptions from their previous training. Those who could "empty their cup" and start over did have a leg up on officers who had never had this background... but that's not easy for most to do, and fewer still are willing.

If this was true at this level, I see no reason to expect it to be different at levels of higher intensity.

No theory here, just my FWIW from personal observation.