Posted on Jun 8, 2015
Is Krav Maga more practical than Modern Army Combatives?
34.1K
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 >1 y ago
Posted >1 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)
8
8
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.
(8)
(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
2
2
0
MAC is a good discipline but impractical in full get up. Krav Maga is great but limiting when the fight goes to the ground. A diverse balance must be found based on the warriors strength. I love my guns and would rather use them to keep the enemy out of arms reach, but that isn't always possible. Personally I practice Taekwondo, Combat Hapkido and Krav Maga. Mix that with some Tai Chi to strengthen my ability to keep my head and maintain control. I personally think the Army should stick with MAC, but offer a variety of disciplines throughout (in garrison, abroad, deployed) and develop a small incentive system to encourage participation like promotion points for various degrees or belts.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT Kevin Brown: it's not that Krav doesn't teach ground techniques; they teach you to avoid it as an offensive move (taking someone down). Rarely do you find a reaction/defensive scenario that leads to the ground.
MAC upper levels teaches techniques similar to Krav but how many level 4 does the Army have in comparison to the influx of level 1s. I think that the issue I see in MAC is that Level 1 is ground heavy and as rare as you meet someone who made it to Level 4, you got all of these Level 1 certified MAC floating around teaching ground only to the troops. Bureaucracy has something to do with it too. It's a risk averse chain of command that doesn't want people to get hurt too.
What I see is that a beginner level in Krav is actually more practical than level 1. Of course it's easier for me to say that since I have been taught level 1 MAC for 6 years now LOL.
MAC upper levels teaches techniques similar to Krav but how many level 4 does the Army have in comparison to the influx of level 1s. I think that the issue I see in MAC is that Level 1 is ground heavy and as rare as you meet someone who made it to Level 4, you got all of these Level 1 certified MAC floating around teaching ground only to the troops. Bureaucracy has something to do with it too. It's a risk averse chain of command that doesn't want people to get hurt too.
What I see is that a beginner level in Krav is actually more practical than level 1. Of course it's easier for me to say that since I have been taught level 1 MAC for 6 years now LOL.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm no expert in MAC since I have no experience with MAC and was taught and instructed the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program MCMAP. It's great to learn more than one martial arts and all but I don't think that both MAC and MCMAP isn't enough. I train in Muay Thai for 14 years and BJJ for three years. It would be great if there are more real life training to where we can use some techniques and I think that's where we lack in. Just speaking my opinion.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Yes, I agree. There needs to be an active engagement in whatever martial art higher ups decide to settle on. I think the problem is with bureaucracy. So many leaders turn managers (managing risks). They don't want anyone getting hurt.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Modern Army Combatives appears to me to have a lot of Krav Maga already blended in to the program. Watching some Sambo, there are many similarities with Krav...with Krav doing a lot less ground work. I think the Krav Maga fighter is more concerned with multiple attackers and being on the ground would..in my opinion...normally be fatal when facing multiple attackers.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
As a long time military martial arts instructor, no matter what you call it, self defense basics never change, no matter what the style. The styles merely vary by the experience, capability, and personality of instructors, and the order in which techniques and tactics are taught. There are differences in true martial arts vs sports vs basic police/military training such as whether one is offensive or defensive. During the 70's when the show "kung fu" was popular, instructors painted over their signs and reworded them to say "Karate" or Kung Fu even when they were not Chinese origins. That said, there were not a lot of belts and colors involved pre 1950 until Americans got involved and brought "Ju Jitsu" and so forth into the United States. Meanwhile, there are many dubious claims to have "started" ancient martial arts in various locations around the world.
(2)
(0)
SCPO David Lockwood
with today's enemy I think this is definitely an excellent tool to have in their back pockets.
(2)
(0)
1SG Michael Blount
I've always been of the mindset if I can't knock it down with my rifle, it's just gonna be a hard day for my mom.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
There is no "best" Martial art. There is a best martial art for the situation you are currently in. That said, if you are going to provide a "baseline" for everyone, based on most likely scenario, what do you go with? (I'm making no assessment in particulars).
The default is that you have your primary weapon, whether rifle and/or pistol, and are standing, and therefore do not need to engage hand-to-hand. Take yourself out of the default equation, and grappling, especially ground based grappling becomes a good go-to martial art.
This isn't to say KM is bad, but that it's farther down the "most likely chain" and hence requires less focus. MAC's fundamentals are further up the chain of "most likely" end up being a better fit for "baseline." It's a working Big to Small issue.
The default is that you have your primary weapon, whether rifle and/or pistol, and are standing, and therefore do not need to engage hand-to-hand. Take yourself out of the default equation, and grappling, especially ground based grappling becomes a good go-to martial art.
This isn't to say KM is bad, but that it's farther down the "most likely chain" and hence requires less focus. MAC's fundamentals are further up the chain of "most likely" end up being a better fit for "baseline." It's a working Big to Small issue.
(2)
(0)
SGT Bryon Sergent
Anything is better than Combative s! Why not the Marine fighting style. I have never seen it trained but I understand that it was more like mma! Actual Fighting not grappling only.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
To pile on w/ Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, the "best martial art" is the one that you put together that best suits your abilities. As I stated in my response to the question, I have found a good mix that work best for me being "a little dude" - evasion, quick, dirty. Most programs are there to teach you basics. It is up to you to add to those skills by pulling from others. I pulled from aikido & krav. I also love the philosophy of Jeet Kun Do - no set katas, they waste time. Practice the actual techniques at full speed. Katas are only effective if your dancing partner is doing the same dance as you.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I was Aviation, and it was 20 years ago, so the only "Army Combatives" training I got was in basic... combat arms MOS's please chime in if it got better later.
That said, the training I did get was a joke, and I knew it was at the time. My opinion was jaded because I'd taken Tae Kwon Do for 4 years with a bit of Judo and Jujitsu mixed in, but our drill instructors even had the falls backward.
Bayonet isn't a big leap from staff training, there wasn't much boxing equipment available at the on post gyms I went to... we could do a whole lot better with VERY little effort and cost.
That said, the training I did get was a joke, and I knew it was at the time. My opinion was jaded because I'd taken Tae Kwon Do for 4 years with a bit of Judo and Jujitsu mixed in, but our drill instructors even had the falls backward.
Bayonet isn't a big leap from staff training, there wasn't much boxing equipment available at the on post gyms I went to... we could do a whole lot better with VERY little effort and cost.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
BJJ and ground fighting all the way, but then again I'm a little bit biased.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google