From ancient times and until the present mankind has developed many forms of fighting for the purpose of self-defense, survival, or making war. According to ICC the martial arts today consist of six general types of classification: Health & Fitness, Cultural & Classical, Disciplinary & Philosophical, Performance & Sportive, Fighting & Defensive, and Combative & Survival. Although the distinctions between some of these classifications are minimal the attitude of the practitioner is shifted significantly as well as the focus of the training. Therefore, not all martial art teaching systems are equal. Some focus on the preservation of ancient battlefield techniques, others lean toward establishing a mind-body harmony, while some are mainly used for aesthetic purposes, all the while another system may focus upon fighting or only upon defense while another delves into hard core issues of survival and forging the practitioner into a hardened warrior. All martial arts have value- in respect to the focus of the martial art it may be higher or lower in combative value compared to another martial art. This is not to say that a martial art regardless of its classification can’t be effective in a given situation. However, the point lies in discovering which systems are more finely geared toward real modern combative applications. This is the purpose of Integrated Combative Concepts, to determine through research, training, and testing what principles and methods best apply to the REALITY CONTINUUM.

The Combat Escalation Scale represents a "sliding scale" that based upon the situation and event helps us determine the proper use of a given skill in context to the situation, legalities, and values of the combatant. The first law of combat is "No situation is ideal". Thus, keep in mind that "Murphy rules" and there just may be a tweaking or squeezing of a situation, legality, or value just in order to survive. On the left top of the scale we have the pre-combative aspects of awareness, assessment, attitudinal adjustment, distancing, posturing, misdirection, verbal deflection, verbal de-escalation, orienting, exiting, and escaping. In the middle top of the scale we have the combative aspects of decisiveness, engagement, controlling, and terminating the conflict. On the right top side of the scale we have the post-combative aspects such as escape or havening, triage, gathering information about the attacker, reporting the attack to authorities, legal preparation, counseling, physical therapy, etc. On the bottom left portion of the scale we have the most passive aspects of a would-be attacker such as intimidation, casing or interviewing, verbal insults, and threatening body postures. On the bottom middle portion of the scale we have the more active and aggressive actions of an attacker such as pushing, grabbing, tackling, on up to acts of extreme violence such as rape and murder. On the bottom right portion of the scale we have what the attacker may do after the conflict such as bringing a law suit, vengeful retaliation, threats, slander, liable, vandalism, etc. If we were to slide the scale top left or right we will start to notice appropriate and inappropriate actions. For an example if a person slaps me do I have a right to break their neck? That would be considered excessive force and although I was attacked the means do not justify the end. So, in that situation the imbalance of the scale would lean in favor of my attacker. Contrarily, if my attacker is attacking me with a knife the use of verbal de-escalation is past due and anything but immediate physical action will result in my bodily harm or even fatality. To be balanced we use a "Force plus one" theory. This means I may use the same method against my attacker or add an extra amount of reasonable force to protect myself. For example, an attacker tries to slap me and out of reasonable force to protect myself I grab his arm twist it and pin him to the ground to keep him from hitting me again or if he attacks me with a knife in an act of rage I may be justified out of fear of my life to maim or even kill the attacker. However the best approach is to try to not be there at all or to use de-escalation methods or quick exits and escapes to avoid the emotional, physical, moral, and financial calamities that follow a violent conflict.

                                                                                                             NEXT