Built for military necessity, shaped by real operational experience.
Modern Combatives did not emerge from sport. Its twentieth-century development was driven by a practical problem: how to prepare police officers, soldiers and special-operations personnel for violent encounters at extremely close range.
These environments were different from a ring or a controlled training hall.
A confrontation could begin without warning. A firearm might not be immediately accessible. Distance could collapse in seconds. Personnel could be operating inside buildings, vehicles, narrow spaces or behind enemy lines.
The requirement was therefore not to create another martial art.
It was to develop methods that could be learned quickly, remembered under pressure and applied when violence became immediate.
THE MILITARY REQUIREMENT
War created a different training problem.
During the Second World War, military organizations had to prepare large numbers of personnel in limited time.
Specialized troops could be required to conduct raids, capture prisoners, enter buildings, perform reconnaissance, operate behind enemy lines or continue fighting after losing access to their primary weapon.
Traditional military drill and marksmanship remained essential, but they did not answer every problem.
Personnel also needed a method for the moment when an opponent was already within striking, grappling or weapon-retention distance.
Training therefore had to become simple, direct, adaptable and operational.
Where practical close combat began to take modern form.
One of the central figures in the development of modern Combatives was William Ewart Fairbairn.
Fairbairn served with the Shanghai Municipal Police — SMP.
The SMP was the police force responsible for the Shanghai International Settlement, an international district that existed during a period in which Shanghai was one of Asia's largest, most complex and often violent cities.
Fairbairn's police career exposed him to armed crime, street violence, arrests and confrontations that could not be approached as sporting contests.
Over years of police work and instruction, he studied and adapted fighting methods around a practical question:
What can still be performed when violence is sudden, close and uncontrolled?
Experience before theory.
Fairbairn worked closely with Eric Anthony Sykes, another important figure in the development of practical shooting, weapons and close-combat methods.
Their approach did not depend on preserving one traditional martial system.
Methods were selected and adapted according to operational usefulness.
This pragmatic approach became one of the defining characteristics of twentieth-century Combatives: the problem determines the method.
The Shanghai link documented by Marine Corps history.
Before the Second World War, personnel from the United States Marine Corps were stationed in Shanghai.
The United States Marine Corps is the amphibious expeditionary branch of the United States Armed Forces and is commonly referred to as the U.S. Marines.
Historical material published by the Marine Corps documents direct contact between American Marines and the fighting methods being developed around Fairbairn in Shanghai.
Marine Corps historical research records interaction and exchange involving Fairbairn, Sykes and Marine personnel and identifies this Shanghai period as part of the development of American close-combat training.
This connection is important because it predates America's entry into World War II.
The military requirement was already becoming clear: personnel needed options for situations in which weapons, distance and conventional tactics were no longer enough.
Close combat became part of specialized wartime preparation.
When the Second World War began, Fairbairn's experience moved from police work into the military training environment.
He became involved in preparing British military and special-operations personnel for close-range confrontation.
The training environment reflected wartime necessity: personnel might have only limited time to acquire skills before operational deployment.
Techniques therefore had to emphasize efficiency and rapid application rather than technical complexity.
Fairbairn and Sykes also became permanently associated with the Fairbairn-Sykes Fighting Knife, a weapon developed during the war and strongly associated with British Commandos and other special-operations personnel.
Close combat inside America's wartime intelligence service.
Fairbairn was later brought to the United States to work with the Office of Strategic Services — OSS.
Created in 1942, the OSS was the United States' principal wartime organization for strategic intelligence, espionage, sabotage, support to resistance movements and special operations.
After the war, the OSS was dissolved. Its intelligence legacy became an important part of the institutional history that later led to the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency — CIA in 1947.
OSS personnel could be required to operate clandestinely or behind enemy lines, sometimes without conventional military support.
Their preparation extended beyond shooting. Training could involve communications, weapons, demolitions, fieldcraft, clandestine operations and close combat.
Historical material preserved by the CIA documents Fairbairn's role in OSS training during World War II.
This is a crucial part of the documented history of modern Combatives.
The objective was not sporting performance. It was to give an operative a small number of practical options for the moment when an operation became physically violent at close range.
The American continuation.
Rex Applegate became another major figure in the American development of wartime close-combat and practical combat-shooting methods.
Applegate worked within the same broad wartime training environment and helped preserve and develop concepts associated with Fairbairn's approach.
The underlying assumptions were practical: distance could disappear quickly, an attack might begin without warning and complex motor skills could become difficult under extreme stress.
Training therefore emphasized methods that could be performed decisively and under pressure.
WHAT MODERN COMBATIVES INHERITED
The method changed. The principle remained.
Contemporary civilian Combatives is not World War II commando training.
Nor should a modern organization claim to represent the U.S. Marine Corps, the OSS, the CIA or any military or government institution without an official relationship.
What remains relevant is the way the original problem was approached.
This is the historical foundation behind modern Combatives: police experience in Shanghai, Fairbairn and Sykes, interaction with U.S. Marines, British wartime training, the OSS and the American continuation represented by Rex Applegate.
PRIMARY & INSTITUTIONAL SOURCES