Talk:United States Army Combatives School

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Martial arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts articles

Untitled

I realize that the citations and references are sketchy at this point. The only reason that I went as far as I have with this is because I was there when most of it happened. I was the 11th Regiment Schools NCO when the Combatives School was getting started and I trained with SFC Larsen for the next 2 years or so. I think I've done a decent job with this as it stands right now, but it's very late and I'm sure that I did not make things as clean or concise as they should be. It's a fine line between having a page dedicated to the school and just doubling up on info that's already on the combatives page. I'm trying not to do it, but I can't help but think I am. I'd love to just throw a helpme tag up, but I think that this page is really going to require the watchful eyes of people that are already involved in the combatives community some how. I'll probably send Mr. Larsen (I can't believe he's a "Mister" now, some guys you just don't expect to see retire) an email and let him know what's up and see if I missed anything or if I remembered some things incorrectly. EvilCouch 12:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AMAZING start! Thank you. I've never written anything that couldn't be improved but dang. This sets a high standard. Well done. Rorybowman 22:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I had thought about just doing it in small chunks, but decided that it would be half-assed. I drove on and what you see is what I ended up with. I sent an email to Mr. Larsen and I'll see if he'd be interested in taking a look. It's to his work email, however, so I don't think he'll read it before monday. EvilCouch 23:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Larsen got back with me and says, Thanks for your effort and it’s good to hear from you again. I took a brief look at the page and I think it looks great. I’ll go through it more when I get a chance latter today. There will probably be a couple of small things, but it looks pretty damned good. Hooah! EvilCouch 19:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MCMAP

Is there any way someone could compare/contrast this with the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program. I would be interested to know the differences and I think it would make a good paragraph. Hal06 02:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combatives is usless

Try doing any of that stuff with gear on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.199.9 (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with the comment above there has been a lot of criticism of the new combatives. Its been rife on internet forums dealing with other combatives approaches, particular WWII combatives. You can see some of it on e-budo.com forum on close combat. Main criticisms have to do with the percieved emphasis on BJJ and ground fighting, focus on sport techniques, elimination of what were considered deadly techniques from older H2H systems, applicability while wearing gear etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.57.165 (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference section

I removed the link to moderncombatives.org Im not saying that the link does not belong; but the way it was labeled it appeared to be a link to the FM on a DoD website. It was neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.44.78 (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also apparently stripped the page of its categories. I reverted your edit and separated the two references to clarify the difference. EvilCouch (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-edited out the same link that seems to serve only to promote the commercial enterprise. Linked page has little or nothing else to add value to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.43.106 (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]