Talk:Marine Corps Martial Arts Program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Martial arts (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Other services?[edit]

Are Corpsman allowed to take part in MCMAP?

Yes. I've seen instances where Navy, Army, and foreign military members have earned tan and grey belts. I'm willing to bet that they can't be instructors, but I don't think there is any policy on that. bahamut0013 16:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
According to this article, The first non-Marines to become instructors were some Seabees in April 2008. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. We've had considerable numbers of Navy Corpsman (E-4 and above) attached to USMC fleet units (Greenside Navy) beocme instructors and teach well before 2008.

//Any service that is attached to a Marine Corps unit may become qualified and advance in the MCMAP. Once they are not longer attached to a Marine unit, they are not authorized to wear MCMAP belts. Only Navy (Greenside Only) may become MCMAP instructors. They may not become Instructor Trainers, only Sergeants or above in the Marine Corps may achieve this level.


I just spent a little bit of time today fleshing things on this article out, and hopefully I'll get a chance to revisit it in the near future. It's actually a very holistic program, so we should be able to turn this into a pretty respectable article with some work. Fox1 19:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with the description here of LINE as unarmed combat. Advanced LINE training involves the use of knives and bayonets, as well as e-tools and other improvised weapons. I guess that's part of the problem, as the article says - it doesn't have any non-lethal applications. (I would say that the problem there is the misuse of the Corps as a peacekeeping force, not with the fighting form itself. The fact that Marines are kept in constant contact with civilians should be changed, not their combat style.)
If there's going to be an article on USMC martial arts, LINE should probably get more than a passing mention, since it was in use for almost 20 years and this new kinder, gentler, tree-hugger stuff has been around for less than 5. In fact, we should probably go all the way back to the good old days of Judo, if the article is going to be comprehensive.
I'll see if I can add a few things here in the next day or two. Semper Fi. Kafziel 12:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I changed the the word "unarmed" to "close" in the LINE reference, but I think adding information on LINE in this article would be inappropriate. You're certainly correct about the importance of the system, but it has it's own, wikilinked article that you can expand, rather than duplicating information here. Similarly with any reference to judo, a mention in the article would be fine, but there's no reason to duplicate any but the most basic info here in the article. Fox1 14:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I agreee. I expanded the LINE article instead. Thanks for the input! Kafziel 15:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The Martial arts program section of the United States Marine Corps page has more info than this page (or at least contains info that this page doesn't). Ideally, the page on Marine Corps Martial Arts Program should be longer and more detailed than the section in USMC. - Matthew238 05:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I made a few changes, listing each belt individually with its different requirements and the basics of what are taught. I'd like to include a list of the moves later perhaps. I know it looks really rough, I'll fix the appearance later on tonight. Or someone else can. Let me know what you guys think though. Gelston 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Formatted it; it looks good and the content is appreciated. Here's a rough guide to the formatting Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page; but generally it's learn by example. See something you'd like to do? (bold, italic, lists, etc), click on edit to see how the code looks, and copy it. --Mmx1 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Awesome, looks great. Appreciate it. Gelston 01:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Created a history section, which includes the info from the old Unarmed Combat section, and was therefore replaced. Let me know what you all think. Gelston 04:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For some reason its duplicating the references, but I can't seem to figure out why. It only shows upas 2 when I click show preview, but when I save pageand look at the article, its showing 4.Gelston 04:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a known problem from the last 24 hours. I have the dubious distinction of being the firrst one to report it. Solution here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Solution_to_problems_with_footnotes_and_references. Basically, you have to WP:PURGE the page. --Mmx1 04:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So annoying. Have to purge after every little edit. Anyways, put up a disciplines section. Still a few more things I want to add to this article, but I'm trying to keep it easy to read, and don't want to wander off into original research. Gelston 05:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the synergy graphic, the MCMAP belts graphic and updated the Martial Culture section. When someone gets a chance, we need to put something in the Warrior study section and fatten up the history section, it only goes up to 2000. --Adavies4 17:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions, but I don't think we need to go into any depth of the individual Martial Cultures - readers can find out about them on their own articles, and they don't have a direct relevance to MCMAP. Yes, they are studied in MCMAP as examples, but there's no direct lineage or influence upon MCMAP. I think it would suffice to have a paragraph explaining the Martial Culture aspect of MCMAP and identify the cultures it studies. --Mmx1 05:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Seeing how there is nothing under Warrior Studies and I do not know enough to put anything there, I removed the heading. "==Warrior Studies==" <-- for the lazy if they want to put it back. Also, maybe adding implementation and criticism sections? I've heard muttering about the inefectiveness of MCMAP in real world situations versus the "tan belt universe" and difficulty in getting instructors to all the units Lesssthan 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


The vast majority of this article is devoted to the discussion of unrelated, historical warrior cultures that have a tenuous tie at best to this topic; this could be much more effectively conveyed by a few links to the wikis on the cultures in question so as not to dominate the actual topic.

Beyond that, the article focuses almost entirely on the history of the program and the structure and rules relating thereto and doesn't deal much at all with the actual techniques or any critical analysis.

I think someone just paraphrased the warrior culture studies from the handbook. I'll shorten the duplicate info and expand into the more Marine specific study. bahamut0013 16:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Code Result
This user has a tan belt in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program.
This user has a grey belt in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program.
This user has a green belt in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program.
This user is a green belt instructor in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program.
This user has a brown belt in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program.
This user is a brown belt instructor in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program.
This user has a black belt in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program.
This user is a black belt instructor in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program.
This user is a black belt instructor-trainer in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program.

I'm sure these won't get a huge amount of use (just how many wikipedians are Marines who were servince while/since this program came out?), but they are there for your consumption. bahamut0013 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone know anything about civilian establishments that teaches mcmap technique? New York? I am interested in learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are any, they are most likely run by people with previous military service. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Navy Corpsmen and MCMAP[edit]

I'm an instructor at Field Medical Training Battalion (East) and ALL Corpsmen that go through either here or at the West Coast are graduating with Tan belts. This is a new requirement and its definitely benfitting the Navy-Marine Corps team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be more information regarding U.S. Navy Corpsmen in the article. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Enlisted and Officers[edit]

Are these programs available for both Enlisted and Officers? At first thought I would just think enlisted a NCO's would be involved in it, but It would be nice to know and nice to add to the page. anybody? Fightinginthestreets (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's open to both. I don't think there is anything in the article that indicates that officers are excluded, nor would I fathom why anone would think that. bahamut0013 12:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


why is there no mention of Rechard Strozzi-Heckler? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2009

Please do not delete content when you add comments. The deleted discussion has been returned. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 08:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
After doing a bit of searching, it seems that while he served as a Marine, provided leadership training for Marines, and is an accomplished martial artist, I can't find any evidence that these areas have intersected. He doesn't seem to have had anything to do with MCMAP. If you have something that illustrates a link there, then please share it with us. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


Any luck on finding a reliable source for your nicknames of MCMAP? You are aware that no one in the Marine Corps uses those nicknames, right? I don't know where you are stationed or who around you uses those nicknames, but your here-say does not belong in this page. As long as you keep your nicknames section with the "citation needed" next to it, why can't I add: " MCMAP was used by the Spartans (citations needed)"? We both know that no one will be able to find evidence that they didn't use MCMAP, even though we know that they did not. See where I'm coming from? You're using an ad ignorantium argument here that, quite honestly, doesn't hold any water. I'm asking you to remove the nickname section, especially since you are representing the Marine Corps here. Think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Simply because you don't like them does not mean they are not used, nor does the fact that nobody you know uses them around you; but suffice to say that it wasn't something that I made up one day. Regarding the "Spartans", you can't game the system like that, adding in blatent vandalism to illustrate a point. You cannot generalize or assume that there is no evidence (I highly doubt that you have even looked), and I have never argued that it must be proven false (however, you have tried to shift the burden of truth, which is a fallacy of the same type). Your condescending tone is not helpful here. Lastly, nobody is representing the Marine Corps here, every editor does so as a volunteer, otherwise a conflict of interest exists that is irreconcilable.
Suffice to say, either add references (properly, this time), or leave well enough alone. There is no need to whitewash an article to remove a minor point that you odn't agree with. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. I never said I didn't like the nicknames (you put those words in my mouth). I said you have no evidence that they are used (perfectly illustrated by the "citation needed" next to it, since you have produced no evidence). Don't you see the problem? By leaving your unverified statement there without proper citation, you are assuming that you are correct (and misleading many people who read this page). So as long as you keep that section about nicknames there, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that there are people who use those nicknames. Explain how my example of ad ignorantium ("The Spartans") is "blatant vandalism?" Is it because you don't agree with it, or because is is incorrect? Show me why. You say that nobody is representing the Marine Corps here. Really? I'd retract that statement ASAP. If you don't believe that you are representing the Marine Corps, what do you honestly think would happen if I reported this link to Headquarters Marine Corps (with your real name and rank, which you have provided)? You, as a Marine, know how they feel about people inaccurately representing the Marine Corps as you have.
There is no misleading going on. Readers are smart enough to judge veracity for themselves. Your example is blatently false, and attempt to introduce it just to prove your point would be vandalism because it would be the deliberate introduction of false information, which any fool could tell by comparing the dates.
And no, I'm not retracting anything. I edit as a hobby, and simply because I edit articles related to the Corps does not mean I represent it. I'm not public affairs, and I speak for nobody but myself. Go ahead and report this, they won't give a damn; I've done quite a lot of work on Wikipedia that the Corps would be proud of, and I've done it without acting as POV-whitewasher, and this is so trivial that nobody would waste thier time on it (not to mention that there isn't any misrepresentation going on here). By the way, threats are not allowed and can get you blocked, not to mention are just plain uncivil. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You honestly think that readers can judge veracity for themselves? Why do we have the need for citations on anything then? Because the truth does matter, and that is what I'm trying to get to the bottom of: Why do you believe that your nickname section is true, yet will not verify it with any sources? Don't you find that odd? I would think that by now, you'd just site a source since you have told me that it is a fact (even though I still believe that you are wrong). By the way, the Marine Corps does care, and it doesn't matter how much work you've done for the Corps on Wikipedia, that does not excuse your hearsay that you have inserted on this specific page. As a Marine, everything you put on the internet DOES represent the Marine Corps and they DO care, whether you think you are acting as an individual or not. For example: why are we not allowed to publicly speak out on any political issues? Because the Marine Corps has stated that they do not want to give the impression to anyone that something a Marine says is representative of the Marine Corps. They don't want to take that chance, understandably so. Look, my only reason for offering this resistance here is to ensure that the Marine Corps is properly represented. That's it. There is not personal vendetta (I don't even know you) and I haven't threatened you, personally, in any way. You said that there isn't any misrepresentation on this Wikipedia page, yet I beg to differ. I'll say it again: If what you think you have said in the nickname section is true, then simply insert a citation and I will be on my way. But until you do, I will keep urging you to remove that last sentence in the opening paragraph. You call it trivial; I call it being accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't me insisting that the article for the President or the SecNav include a comment about how stupid they are, or anything scandalous like that. It's several widely-used nicknames for a style of fighting that aren't exactly pejorative or unsavory. There might be some higher-ranking instructor over at the MACE who might get worked up about it, but it seems far less likely than you portray that anyone else would care either way. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is no misrepresentation (or hearsay) here. They are in common use in the Corps, whether you choose to believe it or not. I'm not inclined to to the busywork here because I don't buy the rationale of your objection. Urge all you want: you are the one who has a problem with it. I also have to respond to another mistake you have made: Marines are allowed to speak out on issues, even political. There are rules regarding political campaigns and anything even remotely close to disrespect, slander, or libel; but being a Marine doesn't force you to remain mute unless approved by higher headquarters. Indeed, the Corps lifted its bans on social media sites specifically because they trusted the judgement of the individual Marine when interacting with the public. That doesn't mean I can go on Facebook and call my Gunny a moron, but I can state some of the lore of the Corps. Lastly, yes, we do have to trust the reason of the reader, or the concept of an encyclopedia breaks down. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It is hearsay. Each day that you leave the nickname section up without proper citation (that's all I'm asking for), you are proving my point that you have no real evidence for it. You just admitted that the MACE might get worked up about it. Why would they get worked up? Forget pejorative or unsavory, how about accurate? Why can't you cite a source for the nicknames? Until you do, you should remove it, otherwise, like you said, the concept of an [accurate] encyclopedia breaks down, and you are the one compromising its accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously not getting my point, and probably won't; so we've hit the point of diminishing returns on discussion. You have the problem, you do the legwork. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I understand your point and I'll leave you alone after this: If you are correct about the nicknames, why won't you include a source? You said people use them; who are they? Please cite them. Sorry you think that this has become pointless. That was not my aim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a former Marine with a tan belt earned in mid-2001 (August I think). "Semper Fu" I know was a common nickname, it seems to have been coined here . I've also seen the term McNinja used but far less often. Finding specific sources for these nicknames will be difficult because they're just that, nicknames and not official terms used by the government. The most official thing that could likely be found is a unit's official webpage using the moniker. (Anthony955 (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC))

Hours required?[edit]

Could someone clarify the hours required part? It seems a bit low, are these hours just for the testing? (Although they seem a bit high for this). I have no military knowledge but did train in civilian martial arts, and there, it was generally the case that an average person would take around 1500 hours to attain a black belt (Around 10 hours a week for 3 years), and to be instructor level, you'd need at least 5 years, and usually it was closer to 10 before people got awarded. I can certainly understand the military requiring less hours as they will usually be in much better physical condition than most civilians, and perhaps due to the fact people only serve for a limited number of years means 5-10 years to become an instructor is unrealistic, but a ratio of 10:1 for black belts seems a bit out of whack there (1500 hours vs 150 hours total based on the numbers on the page). Quelbonpat (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In answering this question, the unfortunate response is; it depends. For the last several years the Marine Corps has started to push belt level requirements for promotion. As a result, many Marines in need of a particular belt often seek out an instructor and acquire their belts within a few days with little or no actual sparring, drills or tie-ins required to fill the actual standards for time. This is a trend that seems to be watering down the MCMAP program. When I went through my Green Belt Instructor course in 2006, it was 30 days long approximately 6-8 hours a day. In 2009, an IT ran the Black Belt course I was in and I acquired my belt in 6 days, 1.5 hours a day, plus a testing day. Things have certainly changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)