What is your thought on Modern Army Combatives?

I think its a great idea to revisit hand to hand combat training subjects during Initial Entry Training. The Marine Corp takes hand to hand combat seriously and the other branches should do it too.

The argument, by most instructors (they watch the UFC far too much), in MACP, is always to dominate on the ground; in real life, that's a terrible idea, especially in combat. You want the ability to flee to a defensive position, or the ability to overtake a position. The Krav Maga mentality is much more effective. In KM, they believe that If you're on the ground, you're captured, or dead vs multiple assailants. MACP just seems like trumped up MMA for the military. Grappling is a VALUABLE skill, on the ground and especially in a clinch on your feet, but there needs to be MUCH MORE emphasis on staying on your feet. Fight Quest did an episode on KM with two established MMA fighters... check it out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt8w92ilbVM

My thing with it is that a) you learn just enough to get your but kicked and b) half those moves they want you to do you have a hard time doing it in full gear and c) why the hell do we have guns and battle buddies if not for these scenarios

MY reserve unit gets 3 hours of annual training at level 1. That is not nearly enough to become proficient in it. I don't feel that it does any good to train in the techniques, taught at a crawl rate and not get enough reps throughout the rest of the year to maintain a basic level of proficiency

I don't like wrestling, or mma. Bring back boxing and I'd go through all the levels or whatever. I have no intention on doing combatives it does not interest me, and because of that I would get injured by the one high speed guy in class..

I have always been on the mindset that I have an M16/M4/M249/240 for a reason. If I have to use some sort of Combative-esque training, something has gone seriously wrong. Now, I understand, when clearing a room or MOUT situation, you won't have that 300+ meter range to take somebody down, but that is when you butt-stroke or whatnot.

I support the MACP, but believe that it must be changed. It seems to me that the endpoint of level 1 is to restrain. It is fine in a 1 on 1 instance, but I don't think it has saved any lives in combat. I would love to see level 1 become more inclusive to kill or disable tactics. Why? Because I can think of very few situations where level 1, as it is taught, is effective in defending or attacking a combatant enemy without very near term assistance from another friendly. 

I am against it because I have NEVER seen it done professionally. My first experience was in Basic training.  The first few classes were fine, but eventually the instructors pushed the envelope too far.  They held a platoon vs platoon take down competition. Two soldiers would close the distance and attempt to take down their opponent. One soldier did not graduate with the rest of us because he suffered a broken rib. I won my take down but I injured my shoulder doing so (never reported or treated). It hurt bad enough to wake me up several times through the night for more than 6 months. My next experience also went well for the first couple of days of training. The clutch drill was out of hand. Instructors were throwing hooks to the body and uppercuts. They were running backwards to escape clutch attempts so they could keep pounding the soldiers. I passed the course but with bruised ribs that took months to heal. The cons outweigh the pros. The risk outweighs the reward. I'm LvL 2.

I love being level 1 and have been trying to get level 2 for a while. I wish we had something to distinguish between the levels like the Marine Corps does. I think it's something that we should stress more. Especially for us Combat Arms MOS's since our whole job is to fight the enemy 

Coming from active duty to National Guard, there is no combatives in the Guard.