“Combatants” from the root word COMBAT – “fight in direct contact”, “active fight between enemies”, “any fight or fight.”

Well, let’s see………………… There is ONE singular and 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. There is no mention of World War II, the Punic Wars, or the Spartans. No mention of Juji-Gatame, a smashing right overhand, an edge of the hand punch, or even a good butt kick!

Get it? THERE ARE NO SPECIFICS defining what are or are not so-called “COMBATTIVES”! So why do so many people feel such a compelling need to “define” combatants in a narrow realm of limited methodology? “I know what you do”…………………..”That Fairbairn thing”. A month ago this same guy thought FAIRBAIRN was just a decent bronzer. “Yeah, I base my fights on Applegate” ……………… Six months ago this guy thought Applegate was the entrance to an orchard! Everyone is an “expert”. In what exactly? I’m not sure even “they” really know.

I won’t dare speak for ANYONE else who uses this term “combatives”. I really wouldn’t want to! All I can do is offer a CORRECT semantic observation and offer my point of view on what my study, training and understanding of so-called “combatants” encompasses.

If you really research and do your homework, you’ll see that even in manuals describing man-to-man combat that are CENTURIES old, there is a very COMPREHENSIVE survey and presentations of MANY forms of armed and unarmed combat. ALL in the same manuals! A wide range of weapon skills are displayed and even “unarmed” combat is a diverse mix of “techniques”. Prior to the use of the London Prize Ring and Marquess of Queensbury rules, a large number of different methods of grappling, striking, kicking and tearing were used and relied upon by “pugilists”. The ancient Greek pankration was an “ALL POWERS” combined combat system. The original Samurai Koryu Bujutsu included a full catalog of armed and unarmed skills. The unarmed fighters of the Japanese bushi also did not limit the scope or method. Emphasis was placed on grappling when THAT was the best method of gaining tactical superiority. Punching, kicking and even biting were used when THAT was deemed the most appropriate method. The Chinese have ALWAYS maintained fully robust combat systems that included all kinds of punches, punches, kicks, throws, chokes, and joint locks. The original Okinawan Te (Ti) included percussion methods as well as “tegumi” and “tuite”. Hit him in the lungs if that worked better. Kick him in the gonads on top of the head if THAT worked better. Either grab him to submit and control OR grab him to lock his spine and snap his neck. Whatever was ordered and whatever DID THE JOB AT HAND!

The 19th century saw the development of many methods of “combined” self-defense systems in the West. The French combined elements of Chausson/Savate (also Basque Zipota) with Boxe Anglaise, Parisian Lutte and even the “new” Japanese Jiu-Jitsu. The British did the same. Barton-Wright’s “BARTITSU” is a classic example. A number of “self-protection” methods combining boxing and wrestling methods were made available to the public in the US. EVEN before any “organized” system was introduced, men who “wrestled” even for “sport” used pretty much ANY device to ensure victory. Just read Elliot J. Gorn.

The 20th century saw even MORE “mixed” combat systems. It CERTAINLY didn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out that in a REAL fight ANYTHING goes. Any and all grabbing, choking, kicking, kneeing, ramming, biting, punching, tearing, stomping, and any other method of violence that could be employed were ALL “FAIR” when “fair” meant the difference between the life or death. And it CERTAINLY did not end in an “unarmed” fight! A “Knight” harassed by a rough and unruly “footman” in a lonely desolate alleyway would feel perfectly JUSTIFIED to execute said “footman” over and over again with his sword staff or bash his brains out with a “life preserver”. Even when the highwayman wasn’t even armed with a single brick. What is that old saying? All is fair in love and in war. Often it is not a question of who is “right”, but simply who is on the LEFT!

This IS “combative” pure and simple. Whatever WORKS BEST at the time! A kind of “mixture” of various fighting skills. HELLO……….. Wait a minute! A “mixed” fighting system? What a NEW IDEA!

Our next installment will look at “fighters” from the Russo-Japanese War and World War I to our “new millennium” and all of our new age “innovations.” It should be fun!

©2005 thetruthaboutselfdefense.com