Posted on Jun 8, 2015
SGT Graduate Student
23K
78
56
13
13
0
Krav
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.
Posted in these groups: Krav-maga Krav MagaDownload CombativesMartial_arts_logo Martial Arts
Edited 6 y ago
Avatar_feed
Responses: 27
MSG David Chappell
11
11
0
Body armor +full load+weapon+ going to the ground = turtle
(11)
Comment
(0)
SGT Graduate Student
SGT (Join to see)
6 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
Cpl Benjamin Long
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
Cpl Benjamin Long
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
Cpl Benjamin Long
>1 y
and I don't think turtling up will protect you from an full magazine burst from an AK
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
SFC Senior Brigade Career Counselor
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.
(9)
Comment
(0)
SFC Senior Brigade Career Counselor
SFC (Join to see)
6 y
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.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SGT Graduate Student
SGT (Join to see)
6 y
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.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MSG First Sergeant
MSG (Join to see)
6 y
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.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CPT Fires Advisor
CPT (Join to see)
6 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
MSG Mark Rudolph
4
4
0
Two totally different systems, but similar concept. Krav Maga was designed to utilize the body's normal reactions in a physical altercation, and be easy to teach and learn. The two areas I noticed quickly, were the initial responses and going to the ground. In KM, if you stay on the ground, you're dead. This is based on the simple principle that if, or when, there are multiple attackers, you will eventually be overcome if you stay on the ground. However, the ground techniques were very similar to what you learn in Combatives L1. They both close the distance, but in KM you do not retreat, and once the threat is neutralized, you disengage and search for more targets. Obviously, this is quite a vague comparison of the two. I utilize something from both systems and believe every Soldier should attend a few KM classes to expand their fight strategy. Heck, 360-Defense alone is worth one class attendance!
(4)
Comment
(0)
SGT Graduate Student
SGT (Join to see)
6 y
MSG Mark Rudolph: I like what you said that "every Soldier should attend a few KM classes"... I would add including those who are not even qualified in MAC. I'm sure some soldier in the IDF is thinking that it would be cool to grasp some MAC concepts. One thing I love most about Krav is that it accommodates anyone from beginners and advanced operators. There is a Civilian, Law Enforcement, and Military version.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SGT Graduate Student
SGT (Join to see)
6 y
I'm not even gonna mention Systema... I'll probably tick-off some Cold War vets in here, Top LOL
(0)
Reply
(0)
MSG Mark Rudolph
MSG Mark Rudolph
6 y
Correct. The civilian version also informs the students of the legalities of defending yourself, and to what extent. I can only speak for IKMF.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close