- This topic has 12 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ok, so after hearing all the suggestions in my other thread, I’ve decided to start taking Wing Chun Do at my university as an alternative to Krav since it isn’t offered in Winnipeg. Nonetheless I was curious to learn more about Krav as well as other martial arts and stumbled upon this site
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/Krav.html
The author seems to have a pretty good idea of various self defence, martial arts, and what he calls “fighting” and “combat” systems. Here is his position on the version of KM that is taught to most Israeli troops, and to most/all people outside of a very select group of Israeli soldiers: “While the watered down version of Krav Maga that is commonly taught to civilians is not combat system, it most definitely IS a fighting system“. He claims that the system that is taught is mostly successful because it teaches people to no longer be afraid of conflict, and gives them some basic tools that may work depending on the person, but that ultimately Krav is no better than anything else that would serve the same purpose.
Now with that all said, I’m sure many of you will have an opinion on it, and I’m interested in hearing your opinions on the matter!
Cheers,
AndrewEdit: I want to add that despite my low post count and the content of this thread I am in no way trolling and honestly thought this would be an interesting topic.
Re: Is Krav Maga Watered Down?
Remember who the author is and how he makes a living… IMO, there are some good points in there and some absolute rubbish… YOMV…
Re: Is Krav Maga Watered Down?
quote cyberidd:Here is his position on the version of KM that is taught to most Israeli troops, and to most/all people outside of a very select group of Israeli soldiers: “While the watered down version of Krav Maga that is commonly taught to civilians is not combat system, it most definitely IS a fighting system“. He claims that the system that is taught is mostly successful because it teaches people to no longer be afraid of conflict, and gives them some basic tools that may work depending on the person, but that ultimately Krav is no better than anything else that would serve the same purpose.There are a lot better informed opinions here than mine, but FWIW: There probably are some differences between the curriculum the IDF go through and what is taught to civilians. It would make sense for there to be, as civilians have the annoying requirement to use an appropriate level of force for a given situation. People in a combat situation don’t have the same requirement so their tactical system should be different.
That said, from what I can tell, there seems to be a great deal in common in terms of the core skills and training methodology. If we’re lucky, someone who has more intimate knowledge of what is taught to the IDF will chime in.
What I find appealing about Krav is its emphasis on gross motor movements and training under stress and exhaustion. After experiencing stress drills on a given scenario, you feel an added level of confidence that your body will respond appropriately without having to think about it. This is where the rubber meets the road when somebody surprises you.
Re: Is Krav Maga Watered Down?
WATERED DOWN is such a broad term with many variables. Teacher, school, students, age, enviorment, focus, purpose etc. Krav is suppose to be an open ended system. If it works use it. In some as it’s human nature it will have a strict sylabus, others may be more open minded
More pertinent to the discussion is to define what is supposedly watered down and why they might be. Meaning are the techs and/or the training method the alleged culprit. Could student retention be an issue? Legalities? Or even cultural bias?. The Human Weapon episode showed a prejudice of Israeli’s prejudging the Americans as weak. maybe this is true, maybe not
Krav being a military system was developed to train recruits. To get them fit quick and start indoctrinating them to real world violence. A recruit is 18 years old, in the military and at war. Definetly a more unforgiving situation than say an American soccer mom or even a 60 year old training in the states. However Krav’s true beauty is that it can make them effective as well to the degree of training they are willing to endure. It’s not watered down in this case but made more accessable. You can take the training to the level “YOU” want. Your there by choice not as a conscript. In israel they can put you on a bus and make you fight the whole ride for a seat. You simply can’t do that with civilians
Are the techs watered down? I think of krav as a basic system but adaptable. There is a basic sylibus that is fundamentally sound. It was developed to be learned quickly. Is it the end all of everything…probably not. I think things like the front choke defenses that there are easier defenses. Sean Amerson who has a strong eskrima background probably knows a ton of better knife defenses, but the krav sylibus will give you fundamentally sound basics. Once the basics are learned then improvisation can begin. And all life/fights are improvisational by nature. You can’t improv w’o knowing the basics
So from a military perspective of course they would see krav as watered down, because all civilian life is soft by their standards. You can do things in the military you simply cannot do in civilian life. Just as you can do things in Israel that would cause you legal trouble in north America
The brilliance of Civilian Krav is creating fit and aggressive civilian fighters,, many who by their own dedication become sheepdogs keeping the wolves at bay. They have a different mindset than the soccer mom, but the system is accessable to all and they have a degree of choice on how far to take it rather than a draftee who doesn’t
Re: Is Krav Maga Watered Down?
Even at 52 on disability, I would put myself thru the training tomorrow if I could afford it, because I know the instructors will make it accessible to me yet challenge me to go farther than I think I’m capable of. Watered down insinuates a weakness, but this adaptability is a strength not a weakness
Hope this helps.
Mike
Re: Is Krav Maga Watered Down?
quote Don:Remember who the author is and how he makes a living… IMO, there are some good points in there and some absolute rubbish… YOMV…I agree that there are some points that make sense, and others less so. There are also some points that come with a grey area IMO. One of those points is that when an army is taught a martial art, it comes with motives beyond making them stronger hand to hand combatants. He suggests that Armies are often taught martial arts in a way that boosts their willingness to fight and self-confidence as fighters, but that they purposely make it less effective so that people are not hurt as badly in training or when fighting amongst each other. He says the same can largely be applied to Krav Maga. The author goes on to describe his first experience with Krav 30 years ago:
“In the mid 1980s I had a chance to work out with a former Israeli Commando. Putting it mildly, this guy made me squeak. He moved me into positions that not only I couldn’t fight back from, but, if he’d zapped me, I would have shattered. Not break, shattered. This stuff was not to inflict pain, it was to injure and kill. And to do it A.S.A.P.. This was Krav Maga and it was effective.”
But follows it up by saying this:
“what I was seeing — significantly — lacked all those little tweaks, twists and pulls that I’d come to recognize as inherent in ANY system designed to inflict serious injury onto your opponent. Breaking someone isn’t about how hard you hit, it’s about setting up the conditions that when you do hit, he breaks. I don’t care how hard you do it, the ‘snap, crackle, pop’ element was missing from what was presented as Krav.”
As far as how he makes his living, he states in another place on the site that he teaches MA in a small town somewhere and that the only revenue he really gains from the site is through selling the books he has on it, although coming from the site’s author that information may not be entirely true.
quote tzrider:There are a lot better informed opinions here than mine, but FWIW: There probably are some differences between the curriculum the IDF go through and what is taught to civilians. It would make sense for there to be, as civilians have the annoying requirement to use an appropriate level of force for a given situation. People in a combat situation don’t have the same requirement so their tactical system should be different.That said, from what I can tell, there seems to be a great deal in common in terms of the core skills and training methodology. If we’re lucky, someone who has more intimate knowledge of what is taught to the IDF will chime in.
What I find appealing about Krav is its emphasis on gross motor movements and training under stress and exhaustion. After experiencing stress drills on a given scenario, you feel an added level of confidence that your body will respond appropriately without having to think about it. This is where the rubber meets the road when somebody surprises you.
Since I haven’t had the opportunity to practice Krav myself, I can’t personally comment on this, but IMHO it sounds like a very valid point. The old saying that “you play like you practice” seems to apply here. Training in scenarios similar to those you may actually experience makes a lot of sense to me!
quote unstpabl1:WATERED DOWN is such a broad term with many variables. Teacher, school, students, age, enviorment, focus, purpose etc. Krav is suppose to be an open ended system. If it works use it. In some as it’s human nature it will have a strict sylabus, others may be more open mindedMore pertinent to the discussion is to define what is supposedly watered down and why they might be. Meaning are the techs and/or the training method the alleged culprit. Could student retention be an issue? Legalities? Or even cultural bias?. The Human Weapon episode showed a prejudice of Israeli’s prejudging the Americans as weak. maybe this is true, maybe not
Krav being a military system was developed to train recruits. To get them fit quick and start indoctrinating them to real world violence. A recruit is 18 years old, in the military and at war. Definetly a more unforgiving situation than say an American soccer mom or even a 60 year old training in the states. However Krav’s true beauty is that it can make them effective as well to the degree of training they are willing to endure. It’s not watered down in this case but made more accessable. You can take the training to the level “YOU” want. Your there by choice not as a conscript. In israel they can put you on a bus and make you fight the whole ride for a seat. You simply can’t do that with civilians
Are the techs watered down? I think of krav as a basic system but adaptable. There is a basic sylibus that is fundamentally sound. It was developed to be learned quickly. Is it the end all of everything…probably not. I think things like the front choke defenses that there are easier defenses. Sean Amerson who has a strong eskrima background probably knows a ton of better knife defenses, but the krav sylibus will give you fundamentally sound basics. Once the basics are learned then improvisation can begin. And all life/fights are improvisational by nature. You can’t improv w’o knowing the basics
So from a military perspective of course they would see krav as watered down, because all civilian life is soft by their standards. You can do things in the military you simply cannot do in civilian life. Just as you can do things in Israel that would cause you legal trouble in north America
The brilliance of Civilian Krav is creating fit and aggressive civilian fighters,, many who by their own dedication become sheepdogs keeping the wolves at bay. They have a different mindset than the soccer mom, but the system is accessable to all and they have a degree of choice on how far to take it rather than a draftee who doesn’t.
/
Even at 52 on disability, I would put myself thru the training tomorrow if I could afford it, because I know the instructors will make it accessible to me yet challenge me to go farther than I think I’m capable of. Watered down insinuates a weakness, but this adaptability is a strength not a weakness
Hope this helps.
Mike
I have said it already, but I think its worth repeating that I have no personal experience in this matter, and am mostly interested in other opinions on this matter. With that out of the way, the author seems to agree with you on many points such as the teacher, the school, the student, the situation, etc., but one of the points he made that I found most interesting is the one that I mentioned earlier in this post which is that the Krav being taught uses a completely different system than the Krav Maga that someone used to “break” him 30 years ago. Hes says:
“What it looked like was the typical muay Thai/boxing blend with BJJ thrown in that I think of when someone says ‘mixed martial arts.’
/
Well except the dude who twisted me around never threw a muay Thai kick at me. Come to think of it, he wasn’t really hot to roll around on the ground with me either. His intent was to break me in half by pile-driving me INTO the ground; it wasn’t to get dirty by rolling around on it while trying to dominate me.”
This is pulled straight from what he says and again, without any experience to draw from I don’t personally know one way or another so I’m not trying to say this is or is not the case.
I also think that what you said was very thoughtful as far as the value of different styles and systems as well as their intended audience and the intended situations that they are designed for.
On a separate note, I am very interested in all the comments, keep ’em coming! thumbsup
Re: Is Krav Maga Watered Down?
quote cyberidd:“Well except the dude who twisted me around never threw a muay Thai kick at me. Come to think of it, he wasn’t really hot to roll around on the ground with me either. His intent was to break me in half by pile-driving me INTO the ground; it wasn’t to get dirty by rolling around on it while trying to dominate me.”Krav does try to end the fight before it goes to the ground. They teach ground techniques so you know what to do if you end up there, but they want to avoid going to the ground if possible. In a real world assault, you need to assume the assailant has a friend or three. In that situation, the last thing you want is to roll around with one guy when there’s another moving in to stab you.
Re: Is Krav Maga Watered Down?
quote cyberidd:http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/Krav.htmlThe author seems to have a pretty good idea of various self defence, martial arts, and what he calls “fighting” and “combat” systems.
I’ve read some articles on that site before & some of his writings about violence, victims, psychology of human predators etc are quite interesting and make a lot of sense.
When it comes to this article on KM however, its hard to take seriously as its clear the writer does not appear to grasp KM and has very little exposure to actual KM training, literature, video etc.
As a previous poster mentioned, some of the points are good (such as the importance of the trainer and individual differences in the trainee) but some miss the mark – the general air of & lack of understanding KM in the writing serve to deflate the authority of the entire piece IMO.
Hard to take seriously.
Re: Is Krav Maga Watered Down?
BTW in Israel army recruits learn basic-level KM apparently whereas certain more elite units train intensively to a high level over a longer period of time – such as Seyaret Dudevan who go on risky undercover missions in hostile territory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayeret_Duvdevan
A lot of it is down to how much you put into it eg: someone going to a good civilian school & training regularly probably could end up surpassing the average basic training level of a typical Israeli army recruit fairly quickly – save for more military specific drills, like using your carbine as a blocking & striking weapon…
Re: Is Krav Maga Watered Down?
i do not think krav is watered down. To really be a great fighter you have to spar alot but many people do not want to show up to work with black eyes and cut and brusies on their face. Krav Maga is the next best thing to MMA stuff.
The military is going to teach more lethal blows like throat and eyes than civilian but you can get these same technqiues on youtube . I wrote some notes on knife edge strike to throat and web of hand shots. Very good to know.
I am sure basic IDF military trainning is more lethal than US but there trainning period is going to be very short compared to the months or years we have.Re: Is Krav Maga Watered Down?
Watered down implies dilution. Adjusting to the times and/or environment is not dilution in my opinion. The fact that the military or law enforcement might train differently is not dilution either. There are different ways to train. Same with MMA, takes a ton of sparring etc to train for another highly skilled opponent within a rule set.
Re: Is Krav Maga Watered Down?
Also,Don’t forget that LE have legal restraints on the level of damage they can inflict on the bad guy.Their goal is to get him subdued & taken into custody.So some of the techniques that they need,I don’t.Not knowing them is not watered down Krav.
If I’m under unprovoked attack,I’m not going to worry about knowing restraint techniques.I really don’t care if I permanently smash the guys’ knee joint.If a guy comes at me with a knife,I’m not going to loss any sleep if,during the defense on my life,I jabbed his eye out or smashed he’s windpipe & he ‘passes on’.
As you sow,so shall you reap.
That being said,I really am a peaceable guy……No,Really!
Re: Is Krav Maga Watered Down?
Last night, I began reading Rory Miller’s “Meditations on Violence: A Comparison of Martial Arts Training & Real World Violence,” which contains some ideas apropos to this conversation. In the first chapter he describes a matrix that helps to visualize the suitability of a given approach to violent encounters based on the characteristics of the situation. His example is simple, but makes a good point.
_____________Surprised_____Alerted_____Mutual_____Attacking____
No Injury
Injury
LethalThe horizontal axis indicates your level of preparedness for the encounter; being caught by surprise, you have some brief warning, mutual combat or you are the attacker. The vertical axis indicates what level of force is acceptable.
Example scenarios included taking car keys from a drunken uncle. You’d probably be initiating the “violence,” but you wouldn’t want to injure him. That would be a check mark in the upper right corner of the above matrix. A high school parking lot punch-up might be an example of mutual combat with injury as the intent.
Rather than using the matrix that way, however, Miller’s point was that not all approaches or tools are suitable for the situation or desired outcome. Using a gun to take away the uncle’s keys is probably not a great idea. If one’s favorite martial art combination is a backfist/sidekick (Miller’s example), it may be effective in mutual combat when the intent is to injure, but it’s probably not helpful in a surprise attack that requires a lethal response.
He uses this framework to say that many martial arts give students the idea that they are prepared to deal with violence when the reality is that they are training for a subset of the violent things that may happen to them.
Regarding any differences that may exist in civilian vs. military vs. LE Krav curricula, one must take into account not only what the desired outcomes may be, but the nature of the threat. Entry teams will need training biased towards the attack end of the horizontal axis, while I’m probably better off being trained to deal with surprise attacks. I would expect differences for reasons like these and could hardly call any program “watered down” that was targeted at the types of threats I’m most apt to face.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
