Accelerated Battlefield Combatives DVDs [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Accelerated Battlefield Combatives DVDs


dizzydean
11-30-2005, 16:17
Has anyone purchased the dvds Accelerated Battlefield Combatives ? You probably have read the ads in various gun mags. The ads start like this.

The Shocking Story of How The
U.S. Military, The Feds, and Every Martial Art School On The Planet Is Trying To Prevent You From Getting This
Elite Combat Training


Just wondering if anyone had checked this out. Looks like a scam.

Roundeyesamurai
11-30-2005, 16:31
It's a complete and total scam.

ANYTHING advertised as a "shocking secret", or words to that effect, is a scam.

G33
11-30-2005, 16:59
Secret secrets also.;f

garythenuke
12-02-2005, 08:58
I wonder if it is anything like SCARS....

This isn't another Jerry Peterson LLC thing is it? Anyone know what ever happened to that big guy who was with Peterson at the beginning? The former Navy SEAL? He branched out to so something on his own I think.

dizzydean
12-03-2005, 08:19
I thought it probably was a scam, but I keep seeing it in different places. Just wondering if anyone had tried it out.

Roundeyesamurai
12-03-2005, 11:43
Originally posted by dizzydean
I thought it probably was a scam, but I keep seeing it in different places. Just wondering if anyone had tried it out.

No need to "try it out"- precisely the same sales pitch, with precisely the same text, and even the exact same letter from the exact same "Navy SEAL LCDR" in the beginning.

Garythenuke got it right- this crap is put out by the same company, with a new name, every year or so. It's a gimmick to sell DVDs to people who don't know any better.

garythenuke
12-03-2005, 14:32
dizzy,
Do not try it out... I very much hate to admit, but I tired out the SCARS thing about ten years ago. I bought the whole package and still have the videos. What a crock!! It is one of those things in life that one does that makes one's stomach cramp up when one thinks of it.

Find a real place to train with a real person. I am not terribly sold on the whole video/DVD thing for fight training. I happen to live about five minutes from Demi at CSPT so that is where I go for other-than-backyard training.

Good luck,
gary

dizzydean
12-04-2005, 08:13
garythenuke,
Thanks for the info. I have seen these ads for years and was just curious. I figured someone had probably tried it.
I have been out of martial arts for quite a while and have been thinking about getting back in to it.

garythenuke
12-04-2005, 21:03
I just remembered the big guy'sname. Tim Larkin. He set out to do the same kind of stuff. I do not know if he ever made any headway, but I saw him in a few magazines. Sorry for the hijack...

AlexLarsen
12-05-2005, 06:04
If we're talking combatives, which is an Army term, just go find your nearest Brazilian Jiujitsu place. If you're lucky enough to have a Gracie Jiujitsu school near where you live, that's what is taught to recruits and, in greatly more detail, those going through the Army Combatives School.

Roundeyesamurai
12-05-2005, 11:10
Originally posted by AlexLarsen
If we're talking combatives, which is an Army term, just go find your nearest Brazilian Jiujitsu place. If you're lucky enough to have a Gracie Jiujitsu school near where you live, that's what is taught to recruits and, in greatly more detail, those going through the Army Combatives School.

Aaahhh... now we get into the debate portion of the event.

The term "Combatives" was in use by other organizations long before the US Army adopted it. In its simplest form, it refers to exceptionally simplified (some might say, "over-simplified") methods of striking with the hands and occasionally with the feet, and sometimes including limited weapon disarming skills, as well as limited knife and stick fighting skills.

To be succinct, the term "combatives" refers to methods which can be learned by a novice in an extremely limited period of time.

When the Army adopted some Brazilian Jiu Jitsu skills and incorporated them into the hand to hand combat doctrine, the term "combatives" as used by the Army probably should have been modified to "combatives (in lieu of a better term)", as Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is not something at which one can become proficient in a limited epriod of time.

"Combatives" video tapes and classes for the civilian market frankly appeal to two types of people- the exceptionally misinformed, and the exceptionally lazy. Brazilian Jiu Jitsu tends to weed out both of these groups.

AlexLarsen
12-05-2005, 11:29
I'd never heard of the term before I went through Basic, so I assumed it was something the Army had coined. Appologies for putting forward misleading information.

As for the unarmed combat training, it's now based entirely on Gracie Jiujitsu. Mind you, for trainees the Drill Sargeants focus on teaching the trainee how to get inside someone's guard, the dominant positions, how to get out of bad situations, and basic chokes and locks. Combatives School, as I understand it, is a somewhat more extensive and grueling course.

However, I will say at no point do they pretend to teach you to master BJJ. Their focus is on getting the dominant position and either disabling or killing the opponent as quickly as possible.

Roundeyesamurai
12-05-2005, 11:35
Larsen- no problem at all.

I used to think I was well-trained too, until I got out of the military!

Victory
12-05-2005, 13:52
I don't understand how someone thought a grappling-centric form would make the most sense for the army. It's a situation where you're almost guaranteed that your enemy has friends and weapons. I seriously hope they're still teaching the guys how to stand up.

Granted the old WWII combatives are far from perfect. It's essentially 8 techniques for every situation.

Roundeyesamurai
12-05-2005, 14:17
Originally posted by Victory
I don't understand how someone thought a grappling-centric form would make the most sense for the army. It's a situation where you're almost guaranteed that your enemy has friends and weapons. I seriously hope they're still teaching the guys how to stand up.

For this, we must dig back into history.

Remember, most of the world's grappling methods originated as military methods. We have a tendency to think of grappling as a less-injurious means of controlling opponents, but this is a modern concept.

In previous times, grappling made the most sense in a military environment, for the simple fact that striking an opponent with a hand or foot was futile- a fist does no good against armor, and the weight of one's own armor makes kicking difficult.

Grappling, however, can be achieved against an opponent regardless of what he is wearing- in fact, the more weight he wears, the better.

Grappling also permits the application of superior close-combat killing techniques- strangulation, neck-breaking, bludgeoning (with whatever heavy object is at hand), and knifing.

Fast forward to the modern day- what has actually changed? Aside from the presence of firearms (not really a significant change), not much. We still wear armor (and equally cumbersome equipment harnesses and vests), our opponents are increasingly using same, and hitting with fists and feet is still equally futile.

Add to this the fact that it is nature's tendency for close combat to go to the ground, especially mortal close combat, and groundfighting skills become even more imperative.

As for the argument that "there are multiple opponents and weapons involved"-

a) Who ever went into a military environment alone? HIS comrades are likely fighting with YOUR comrades;

b) If your weapon isn't working, you want to be low anyway- the better to avoid being shot.

Given the choice between a potentially minutes-long boxing match, or a potentially seconds-long wrestling match, I'll take the latter.

AlexLarsen
12-05-2005, 21:32
Roundeyesamurai, has it right. The primary consideration in switching to Gracie was the fact that most fighting goes to the ground and that the Soldiers needed a fighting style that would work with the rather combersome IBAs. And yeah, how to stand was the first thing we learned.