Posted on Jun 8, 2015
Is Krav Maga more practical than Modern Army Combatives?
27.1K
77
51
12
12
0
Ok. Some people might get mad at me for even questioning MAC. Don’t get me wrong, ground grappling has its place but in a mob attack—it is not smart. Krav Maga stresses the importance of remaining standing, defending while attacking (cutting time), and turning the table on an armed opponent. Lets face it, with all of our combat gear on, who wants to take the fight to the ground (not me).
While I agree with the MAC techniques, I feel that Krav Maga covers an angle to the scheme of things; it still upholds closing-in on an enemy ("close combat" atleast for Military Krav Maga) but without going to the ground. It does help to know some Jiu Jitsu/MAC because you'll never know when you will be on the ground.
Moreover, Krav Maga adds confidence to the “Resistance” part of SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape).
I have a wrestling background (Olympic, Greco, and Freestyle). I have been a Krav Maga student for only three months. Although, I lean more towards Krav Maga in this argument, I do love MAC for sports.
While I agree with the MAC techniques, I feel that Krav Maga covers an angle to the scheme of things; it still upholds closing-in on an enemy ("close combat" atleast for Military Krav Maga) but without going to the ground. It does help to know some Jiu Jitsu/MAC because you'll never know when you will be on the ground.
Moreover, Krav Maga adds confidence to the “Resistance” part of SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape).
I have a wrestling background (Olympic, Greco, and Freestyle). I have been a Krav Maga student for only three months. Although, I lean more towards Krav Maga in this argument, I do love MAC for sports.
Krav Maga
Combatives
Martial Arts
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 25
11
11
0
SGT (Join to see)
That is precisely what I am saying in theory. While I am confident in my own ability to get back up as quick as possible, I am not sure I would deliberately take the fight there (what the teach beginners). Moreover, most of folks I know (aside from Special Operations) are satisfied with Level 1 (they either don't want to go further or they or chain of command is risk averse). So you end up having people who think that taking an opponent to ground is the best option as that is where most lessons stopped for some reason or the other. I think MAC is good if the practitioners practice is it and develop it (not just a check on the block-like "oh we need one body to be certified-you-over-there-go").
(0)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
hmm going to the ground.... and that protects you in all scenarios? Certainly not traps or ambushes. nor does it protect you from minefields or snipers
(0)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
also taking the opponent to the ground is a horrible option, because multiple assailants just shoot you in the back or hit you with a baseball bat
(0)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
and I don't think turtling up will protect you from an full magazine burst from an AK
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
It sounds like your view of MAC is pretty limited to BJJ, which is pretty true for level 1, but not MAC as a whole. There are plenty of drills focused strictly on fighting with tactical gear on.
MAC is still very young and being refined. Less than 20 years ago it was brand new in Ranger Regiment and it was just called "combatives".
I think in any martial art it's less about the technique and more the way it's practiced that leads to success. I think we've all seen the difference in a class where combatives are being "taught" and one where they are actively practiced.
MAC is still very young and being refined. Less than 20 years ago it was brand new in Ranger Regiment and it was just called "combatives".
I think in any martial art it's less about the technique and more the way it's practiced that leads to success. I think we've all seen the difference in a class where combatives are being "taught" and one where they are actively practiced.
(9)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
During the surge it was standard for everyone leaving Basic Training to be Level 1 certified; from what I've seen, the Army moved away from this. As far as I can tell the Army has reduced it's support for MAC due to concerns about injuries. Personally, I attribute this to poor teachers and overzealous students who are more concerned with "winning" a practice match than training to learn.
Level 1 is simply an intro to learn the basics, the idea is to learn from the ground up. They also teach clinches from the standing position. Level 2 and Level 3 were recently merged. This is where striking and full gear drills are currently taught.
Level 1 is simply an intro to learn the basics, the idea is to learn from the ground up. They also teach clinches from the standing position. Level 2 and Level 3 were recently merged. This is where striking and full gear drills are currently taught.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see): what you explained confirms the reality at most units. There is a huge influx of Level 1 certified Soldiers. Training is being oversaturated with commander safety concerns so when a Soldier requests to go to Level 1 (God forbid you ask for Level 2 and higher), he/she meets some resistance from higher-ups. Little do Soldiers know that MAC is actually a "walk-in" course BUT if they get injured, everyone in their chain is put in hot water.
So you may understand, the limited view of MAC. When we are training at unit level, it's guaranteed that training is stagnant to Level 1 for safety concerns and besides, certification for higher Levels is a prerequisite.
So you may understand, the limited view of MAC. When we are training at unit level, it's guaranteed that training is stagnant to Level 1 for safety concerns and besides, certification for higher Levels is a prerequisite.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
I would add to what SFC Boyd said, by saying many commands think combative instruction ends with send Joe to training. The command teams fail to completely understand MAC and that it is a skill set that requires fidelity and training space, just as marksmanship and AWT.
It is at that point you leverage the level 2 and 3 guys you hopefully have in your formation to evolve the unit program to fighting while wearing kit.
It is at that point you leverage the level 2 and 3 guys you hopefully have in your formation to evolve the unit program to fighting while wearing kit.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
The issue also with MACP vs Krav Maga is the audience they are designed for, in my opinion. MACP is, as stated above, a square 1 learning block for all members of the Army to learn. This includes the people that will most likely never again engage in a physical altercation. However, Krav Maga was designed by a force where the entire military must be ready to engage in hand to hand combat because they are in danger day to day vs on a deployment. Due to people identifying a void in the provided training, in part, led to the development of H2H and SOCP. I encourage you if you are dissatisfied with MACP to try one of those 2 programs.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google