Which are the best (maybe the top 5) books on Combatives? Here are some examples of the books on the subject:
- Get Tough by W.E. Fairbairn (1942)
- Kill or Get Killed by Rex Appelgate (1943)
- Cold steel by John Styers (1952)
- Do or Die by Anthony Drexel-Biddle (1937)
- Shooting To Live by Fairbairn and E.A Sykes (1942)
- Arwrology by Gordon Perrigard
- The Close-Combat Files of Colonel Rex Applegate by Chuck Melson
- The Red and Gray Manuals by Charles Nelson
- Defendu by W.E. Fairbairn (1926) [re-printed as Scientific Self Defence in 1931]
Which of these books are worth to buy (highly recommended)? Which of the above books are highly recommended?
Check out this link to Dennis Martin's site.
Great site :-).
But, which are the best books?
My last choice is to get the main 3 books of WWII Combatives (Get Tough!, Kill Or Get Killed and Cold Steel), plus the one on Combat Shooting (Shooting to Live), plus the one on Combatives history (The Close Combat Files of Col. Rex Applegate).
As I read on internet (and many feedbacks) these are »the main« WWII Combatives books.
Get Tough!, Kill Or Get Killed, Cold Steel, Shooting to Live
love the names
LOL. The funny thing is that the actual WWII survival tactics manuals were probably called things like "Correct Operation of the M1 Rifle", or "Pincer Movements and their applications in urban environments"
Still, you couldn't sell that!
I thought the whole point of World War 2 was that people were being drafted and put on the battle field so quickly by about 2 years into it that training was minimal?
Also, any biographical account of World War 2 i have ever ready makes very little mention of any typed of skilled hand to hand combat.....more bludgeoning and the general horrors of trench warfare.
Igor - Get you hands on "All-IN Fighting 1942" It's a small book, but it's very good. "Cold steel" is a must, as well as "get tough" and "Kill or get killed".
Have a look at http://www.paladin-press.com/
While a lot of the WWII material is still very valid (the basic strikes, and mentality). Their "situational offense" (the Jujitsu side) would be less applicable for todays environment in my opinion. Most of the Combatives exponents of these days seem to be looking to more effective methods.
Don't get me wrong though - there is still some top class principles in those books you mentioned that will never date.
Some modern People you should look to (In case you missed any of them) would be guys like:
Jim Grover (AKA - Kelly McCann)
Just my opinion - hope it helps!
These books are also interesting from a historical perspective:
One I forgot to mention earlier was - "Defendu" by W.E. Fairbairn, and also "Scientific Self-Defense" by W.E. Fairbairn.
Combat Conditioning: The Classic U.S. Marine Corps Physical Training And Hand-To-Hand Combat Course
Also, Hand-To-Hand-Combat United States Naval Institute. (wesley brown)
During several summers training in California I trained with several guys who were marines currently or had done their 4 years, also some Navy guys and a ranger and a seal. Buck Greer, Adam Lynn, Gerald Strebendt for example all went on to fight MMA in UFC, King of the Cage, Jungle Fight, etc etc. All of them thought the Marine / Armed Forces combat system was a complete waste of time. Completely impractical techniques and applications. Just an interesting observation from guys who were immersed in some of the above "systems" of combat.
Just re: the historical perspective, history books they ain't. History books items which take years of research by men and women with titles such as Dr., Prof. etc. etc. and in those you will find occasional references to hand to hand combat, usually how little infantrymen did. The books you're talking about are sensational accounts rather than historical ones.
If you really think about it, why would someone publish a book, in 1942, which had the army's "secret" hand to hand techniques in it? Not to mention the limitations and censorship of publications in wartime countries.
I'm just passing on a few books that might interest Igor (he did ask). I don't really care about the other issues you brought up.
Can't say I'm to fond of the latest USMC stuff either.
Yeah whatever. Just trying to establish that they have no historical value. I have a vested interest in that.
well in fairness they are historical in the sense that they show the beginnings of 'combatives'?