Marine Corps Times Article
Commandant: It's not the round, it's the shooter.
The Australian soldier has been instructed in formalised unarmed combat training since the early 1940s. While this training was effective in many theatres of war, it was often given in an improvised and individualised manner and has relied on the skill sets of various individuals with a strong commitment and interest to the delivery of the training.
From the hoplological perspective, we clearly distinguish two primary types of combative systems, (fighting arts). As raised several times over the years in HOPLOS, and most recently in Donn Draeger’s article, “Understanding East Asian Combative Culture,”1 martial and civil fighting are two areas of combative behavior that have evolved for different applications under stimulus from different combative contexts.
Core Combative Behaviour and Performance Course Report - Australia
Defensive vs Protective:

The word mindset is often bandied about in combative training, though it doesn’t seem to be easily defined nor well applied in practice.

A Marine Commander's Comments on Preparation of Marines for Combat in Iraq

Colonel George Bristol, USMC, took time to reflect on the preparation of Marines for combat in Iraq.


The second of a two-part interview conducted by Mark V. Wiley of Hunter B. Armstrong, HIS Director. The interview was initially published in “Martial Arts Talk” by Mark V. Wiley, Tuttle Publishing, 2000.


This is the first of a two part interview conducted by Mark V. Wiley of Hunter B. Armstrong, IHS Director. The interview was initially published in “Martial Arts Talk” by Mark V. Wiley, Tuttle Publishing, 2000.

External versus Internal Focus

Behavior and performance capabilities are dependent upon a extremely wide range of factors. A great many of those factors, perhaps most, are virtually uncontrollable. It then is incumbent upon the individual who engages in combat to even more stringently enable himself to learn to control those factors that he does have some control over.

Forming A Perspective on Comparing Combative Cultures and Systems:
Modern Military and Traditional Indian Paradigms

Despite living in a society that cultivates an indoor culture of TV, DVD, and video games, I was lucky enough to have been brought up in an environment where the emphasis was put on physical training. Due to my family background in martial arts, the training could be called martial...

India Trip Report

Most of the trip was spent in Kerala interviewing and observing the gurukkal (teachers), training, and demonstrations of Kalaripayattu, the predominant native combative system of Kerala.


Adversary combat includes three vital components - Approach, Close, Entry. These three components are inherently contained in classical combat training systems (i.e., pre-modern, non-pop fighting arts), and are vital parts of military small unit tactical training.

Training the Use-of-Arms Professional: Effect - Not Display
Part 2
Here again it is important to distinguish between the use-of-arms professional and the amateur. Not in reference to occupation, the single biggest difference between professional and amateur is in the end goal or function of their pursuit of combative capability.
Training the Use-of-Arms Professional: Effect - Not Display
Part 1
Combative training can have only varying limited degrees of influence upon combat itself. A major factor concerning the effectiveness of combative training in combat is whether one is training for effect or display. All too often in modern training, display seems to be the driving factor.


Courses offered:

IHS | Articles | ICS | Weapons & Systems | Reading & Reviews | Links | Archives | Home

Hunter B. Armstrong, Director ~ The International Hoplology Society
315 Foothills Dr. ~ Sedona, AZ 86336
fax 928-204-2394 ~ E-mail
Copyright © 1998-2007, The International Hoplology Society, Inc.