# Core Principles of Krav Maga



## Loki (Dec 9, 2005)

Before my test for brown belt in late June of this year, I spent two months or so breaking down the curriculum, analyzing it and offering my own insight on it. One of the subjects I covered are the principles behind Krav Maga, it's basic characteristics. Here they are, listed in no particular order:

1) Directing attacks at weak points: Attacks should always be directed at parts of the opponents body where they will cause great pain/damage and won't be blocked by muscle/fat.

2) Quick and powerful impact: Attacks must be quick and powerful, otherwise they have no meaning. Slow attacks won't hit on time and weak attacks won't hurt.

3) Hard style: Krav Maga utilizes force vs force and is characterized by short, quick attacks. Defense isn't based on using an opponents force against him (in most cases), but will rather be blocked or evaded and countered immediately.

4) Emphasis on technique rather than strength: Krav Maga fits everyone, since techniques are utilitarian and not strength-dependant. A teenage girl must be able to defend against an adult male.

5) Improvisation: Reality is seldom a dojo, therefore Krav Maga stresses improvisation. A precise, quick and powerful reaction is preferable to memorizing techniques. The techniques are taught as an ideal, the best possible reaction to a given situation. 

   6) Lack of rules: Since the issue is self-defense, all means are santioned. We won't be considerate of a person who attacks us, so Krav Maga is devoid of rules. Kicking to the groin, spitting, biting, gouging and hair pulling are all legitimate.

7) Simplicity: Krav Maga techniques are concise. They aren't visually appealing because beauty is luxury, something that an attacked person doesn't have. Simple is effective and efficient.

8) Adjustability to each practitioner: Every person has a different build, and not everyone can create a 180 degree angle between their legs. Krav Maga teaches the "trunk of the tree", and every practitioner finds his or her "branch". A heavy person can emphasizes fist fighting, a small person can take advantage of his frame for quickness, etc.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 9, 2005)

I've allways been curious about KM. One thing I dont understand is it seems #3 #4 are a bit contradictory. How can a hard style that meets force with force and not use the opponents energy against them also be effective for a teenage girl against an adult male?

7sm


----------



## Loki (Dec 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I've allways been curious about KM. One thing I dont understand is it seems #3 #4 are a bit contradictory. How can a hard style that meets force with force and not use the opponents energy against them also be effective for a teenage girl against an adult male?



It's because cicular movements are too long. Even a teenage girl has to use a certain amount of force and be able to absorb an attack to a certain extent (block incoming strikes). When I wrote it's a hard style, I meant that a teenage girl wouldn't defend against a jab by directing it aside, grabbing the hand, taking the attacker with her and then use a wristlock, but rather block the punch by swatting it aside (which is a soft concept though) and punching him in the face.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 10, 2005)

Circular movements are too long if you make them that way, your circle could also be the diameter of a toothpick....thus being very very short and fast. Thats not the question in this thread though. 

I dont understand. Why must you use force to absorb an attack? Blocking is different from absorbing as far as I use the terms. I think you misunderstand "soft" techniques. It doesn't mean you can't punch to the face, in fact applying a wrist lock from that situation would be a bad decision for any size person. 

You said force against force....a teenage girl meeting my force (I'm 6'2" 210lbs) with force of her own will loose. It takes no force of your own to move to the side, "swat" the punch and lay an elbow in the noggin of your attacker....that is very much appropriate in a "soft" style. I also would not call swatting a punch aside a block.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything, just understand your style. 

7sm


----------



## Loki (Dec 10, 2005)

Perhaps my knowledge of hard and soft styles is simply to minimal to draw a distinct line of where Krav Maga stands. The mentioned example of the wrist-lock is from Aikido, prime example of a soft style, and while not an ideal defense, an existing soft defense nonetheless.

You're right, blocking and absorbing aren't the same, I was thinking of a person coming to slap you, in which case what we do is block by meeting force with force. Same for a roundhouse. Perhaps it's more appropriate to say that defenses against circular attacks are met with force, while straight attacks are redirected, meaning the stlye, hard or soft, depends on the attack. I stand corrected.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 10, 2005)

I like 5, 6, and 7. I think more arts should take these into consideration when teaching self defence


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 11, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Perhaps my knowledge of hard and soft styles is simply to minimal to draw a distinct line of where Krav Maga stands. The mentioned example of the wrist-lock is from Aikido, prime example of a soft style, and while not an ideal defense, an existing soft defense nonetheless.
> 
> You're right, blocking and absorbing aren't the same, I was thinking of a person coming to slap you, in which case what we do is block by meeting force with force. Same for a roundhouse. Perhaps it's more appropriate to say that defenses against circular attacks are met with force, while straight attacks are redirected, meaning the stlye, hard or soft, depends on the attack. I stand corrected.


I think I understand what your saying, but wouldn't a young teenage girl get hurt trying to meet a full power muay thai roundhouse with force of her own? What about a full power hook, how could she stand a chance against a powerful hook from someone my size?

Here is an example that I would use which would be from mantis and (arguably) a soft technique. The attacker throws a right hook (maybe like a bubba punch) you get your left block up but move in as close as you can to the attacker while also circling the same way as the punch is going (to your right) while applying a right punch or elbow to the head. An even better example of a "soft" defense would be to drop (duck) the hook while moving behind the attacker and using an elbow to the back of the head or a good kick to take out the knee. That is what I would consider not meeting force with force. When I think of force on force, I think of standing your ground and just blocking the punch completely. 

Please dont think I'm trying to be rude or anything, I'm seriously curious as to how you guys handle these situations.

7sm


----------



## Loki (Dec 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think I understand what your saying, but...



7sm, no offense is taken, I fully understand where you are coming from and what the point of your questions is. If I cut you off and didn't answer or try to answer your questions, I'd be stopping myself from a deeper understanding of what I attempt to teach, which is downright stupid. I thank you for all your comments and your interest in my style. Keep 'em coming.

As for what you're saying, you're right. For a teenage girl to stand in place and block against a full-powered roundhouse to the head is suicidal. What we advocate is blocking while moving towards the attacker diagonally, forward and in the direction opposite the kick. If the definition of a hard style is that it makes no attempt whatsoever to circumvent force and will always meet it head on, then it can't be practical unless you're built like a gorilla, and even then...

Maybe I'm mistaken in calling Krav Maga a hard style.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 11, 2005)

Ok, I think I understand what your saying. I think the lines between hard and soft are pretty blurry in reality.

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 12, 2005)

So does KM rule out all joint lock type techniques in general?

7sm


----------



## Loki (Dec 15, 2005)

Not at all, we used them often, but usually if the attacker isn't too dangerous (trying to pick a fight, drunk, kid) and it's then used as more of a warning. In some cases they're effective methods of disarming, but why bother with a joint lock if you can (and should) kick the guys nuts up to his throat?


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 15, 2005)

I completely agree! Heh, I allways tell people that. In fact I use that when people ask about disarms. People allways want ot learn to hit the knife hand and make them drop the weapon and such. I'm allways saying, why hit the knife hand when you could lay an elbow through thier cheekbone?

7sm


----------



## Navarre (Dec 15, 2005)

I didn't see any mention of throws. Typically I think of a throw as a soft technique but, as discussed, it's sometimes difficult to distinguish hard from soft.

The pavement is a readily available and effective way to do additional damage to an opponent. Would one in Krav Maga be likely to execute a throw or not?


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm allways saying, why hit the knife hand when you could lay an elbow through thier cheekbone?


 
Well, being close enough to lay an elbow on someone's cheek when that person is holding a knife sounds riskier than staying further out and chopping the hand...but maybe I'm picturing what you mean incorrectly. I'm not crazy about chopping at the hand, but a crossada can do wonders at the right time.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 15, 2005)

I just dont like focusing on the blade too much. In my example it doesn't have to be an elbow it could be a punch or kick. What I was trying to say is people get so focused on a disarm that they forget to simply destroy the attacker. Focusing on the blade can get you killed, lets not forget we have many other weapons at our disposal 

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2005)

Here I agree with you. The best disarm for empty hand vs. the knife is controlling the weapon arm and beating them until they drop to the ground and drop the weapon, in my opinion. Never look for the disarm--keep hitting until they drop.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 15, 2005)

Do you feel that maintaining control of the knife hand places you at additional risk? The knife can easily do damage with the slightest cut. 

If we must place continuing focus on maintaining control of the weapon arm aren't we limiting ourselves in our available options?  If the knockout is quick I'd agree but, if it becomes prolonged, it would seem to be time to disarm so we could open more options.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 15, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> I didn't see any mention of throws. Typically I think of a throw as a soft technique but, as discussed, it's sometimes difficult to distinguish hard from soft.
> 
> The pavement is a readily available and effective way to do additional damage to an opponent. Would one in Krav Maga be likely to execute a throw or not?



I didn't want this to get lost in the shuffle. I'd really like to know how a Krav Maga practitioner feels about the use of throws in combat.  

I'm also interested to know if they have a ground game or if they try to regain their feet if taken down. Hoping somebody knows.  *Bump*


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 15, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> Do you feel that maintaining control of the knife hand places you at additional risk? The knife can easily do damage with the slightest cut.
> 
> If we must place continuing focus on maintaining control of the weapon arm aren't we limiting ourselves in our available options? If the knockout is quick I'd agree but, if it becomes prolonged, it would seem to be time to disarm so we could open more options.



Um I dont think maintaining control neccessarily puts you at additional risk, but I dont think you should limit yourself to maintaining control. There are situations where an attack while moving is worth releasing control. Also, I think if the engagement becomes prolonged, you have allready lost. It should be ended quite quickly. As the engagement prolongs the guy with the knife gaines advantage in my opinion.

I'm also interested in the Krav Maga theory regarding throws.

7sm


----------



## Connovar (Dec 26, 2005)

When I did KM we didnt do throws in the combatives classes However we did take downs (usually single and double leg) during our fight classes. I only did KM for a year and I really liked it especially the fight classes. Make sure if you do KM not to miss the fight classes as thats where you get to put your skills to the test!


----------



## Loki (Jan 2, 2006)

Throws in combat? Hard to implement usually. We don't practice much for throws, and if they're implemented, it's usually either because the executor is skilled or the guy taking the fall was sloppy.

When you say throws, are we talking Judo throws, or anything where the opponent ends up on the ground?


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 2, 2006)

Loki said:
			
		

> Throws in combat? Hard to implement usually. We don't practice much for throws, and if they're implemented, it's usually either because the executor is skilled or the guy taking the fall was sloppy.
> 
> When you say throws, are we talking Judo throws, or anything where the opponent ends up on the ground?



Well our throws are much different from judo throws, but I guess it could be described as anything where the opponent ends up on the ground. We dont usually go down with them, so its more a throw or takedown. We do alot of grabs with knees and elbows which many times end with a "throw". I could be described as kicking their feet out from under them. There is alot more to it with catching their center and all, but thats the general idea. 

I find them actually very effective in combat, when a person has lost their balance or is falling, they are unable to attack you, so your at a great advantage. Usually they react to the unbalancing by droping thier guard or something, their body naturally wants to break their fall.

7sm


----------



## kmguy8 (Jan 5, 2006)

I happen to be a KM instructor in the states & bthis post is misleading...

first.. KM's joint lock theory is simple... if you have to disarm a knife or gun often these are needed... "shock an lock"... KM will "never" advocate a joint lock wihtout first injuring your opponent with strikes.  the only exception I can think of is disarming a grenade thrower from behind (in which case you train to catch his throw with his hand still on the grenade and disarm keeping pressure as to not release the lever... pretty unlikely, difficult, and extreme... only one

Control of the weapon is first in an armed attack.  Unless gun in which case redirecting the line of fire is paramount.  redirect, control, go combative, disarm or eliminate the aggressor (every KM weapons technique with a handful of exceptions follows this logic).  I liked arnisador's quote on the top of this page.

throws in combat: KM acrually has a number of throws... full nelson counters, headlocks taking you to the ground, machine gun counters using throws... even the old foot in the chest and drop back throw are all contained in the cirriculm.  generally, they are avoided, but one need to use them to counter them (same as our approach to high kicks).  also there simply are applications where nothing else will do (often in security and hostage work).

linear vs. circular motion... KM uses both.. often.  The post about this is confusing and inaccurate.  I also teach a chinese boxing system and I assure you KM uses both.  They like to claim it works for any size person, but the reality is the larger athletic build is the one it is best suited for.  Obviously, I think this is true of any fighting system in reality.


----------



## Navarre (Jan 5, 2006)

From my karate training and with no Krav Maga experience, I was always trained as well to control the weapon first.  One needs to be mindful of the opponent's other available attacks of course as well as the surroundings but the weapon creates an advantage for the opponent that should be addressed.

Even a flick of the wrist from an oppenent weilding a stick can cause serious damage. It takes only a touch with a sharp knife to severly wound. The perils of a firearm goes without saying.

As far as throws, I think one needs to be versed in both executing and countering throws.  It is not an uncommon occurrance on the street so we should have throwing techniques in our arsenal. Besides, if the throw is executed on our opponent with even a little skill, the sidewalk becomes a welcome ally.


----------



## green meanie (Jan 5, 2006)

kmguy8 said:
			
		

> throws in combat: KM acrually has a number of throws... full nelson counters, headlocks taking you to the ground, *machine gun counters using throws...* even the old foot in the chest and drop back throw are all contained in the cirriculm.


 
Machine gun counters? I can't even begin to imagine what that would be but I think its something I'd be very interested in seeing.


----------



## Loki (Jan 14, 2006)

green meanie said:
			
		

> Machine gun counters? I can't even begin to imagine what that would be but I think its something I'd be very interested in seeing.



Not machine guns, SMGs. Throws are used when a person is threatening a group with a SMG. The practitioners sneaks up behind him and uses a throw to take him to the ground.


----------



## kmguy8 (Jan 15, 2006)

your statment is not correct.  you are correct about being inside of range.  however, simialir to many staff empty hand defenses, km teaches a redirection of the barrel controling the line of fire... while facing the opponent, then passing into a takdown in which the weilder is lying on top of the weapon with you in side control or back control on your feet...
you could do this from behind.. but then the need to address the weapon is mute and one would be better served elimanting the target via other methods (we do have a section on sentry removal as well)

KM also teaches other rifle, MG, oe long barrelled weapons defenses.  the assumption is a hold up, hostage, or other time when being threatened with a long-barrelled gun in addition to our pistol defenses...

obviously, if the weapon is out of reach (range) your best bet is to get the hell out of there, or to get inside of range where you can eliminate the threat.
If you want to see these moves it is easy enough
"how to defend yourself from armed attack" is a KM book by eyal yanilov that explains a good portion of the systems advanced weapons (specifically gun and rifle but also stick, kinfe, and genade) work.

walk in peace....


----------



## madfrank (Jan 16, 2006)

Loki said:
			
		

> Before my test for brown belt in late June of this year, I spent two months or so breaking down the curriculum, analyzing it and offering my own insight on it. One of the subjects I covered are the principles behind Krav Maga, it's basic characteristics. Here they are, listed in no particular order:
> 
> 1) Directing attacks at weak points: Attacks should always be directed at parts of the opponents body where they will cause great pain/damage and won't be blocked by muscle/fat.
> 
> ...


 
*In theory.*


----------



## tsdclaflin (Jan 18, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think I understand what your saying, but wouldn't a young teenage girl get hurt trying to meet a full power muay thai roundhouse with force of her own? What about a full power hook, how could she stand a chance against a powerful hook from someone my size?


 
A forceful two-knuckle punch into the thigh or bicept of an oncoming strike could stop the above attacks.  I was taught that when I block forcefully, it is really a strike to the attacking limb, that I should try to persuade the attacker to not want to use that same limb as a weapon against me again.


----------



## kmguy8 (Jan 19, 2006)

that 2 knuckle block thing is the biggest load of ***** I have heard in a while!
show me that working once in a MT fight.. i have gone bare shin to shin against 200 lbs fighters for years.... you telling me your 2 knuckle block is going to make me rethink my favorite kick... lol
i suggest you find a better school with more realistic self-defense!

km teaches leg counters to leg strikes to the legs and pretty traditional kickboxing 2 and three point covers to the torso and head for kicks

for punches like the hook KM offers the "outside defense" where the skelital alignment of the blocking arm is at it's strongest against the forarm of the incoming hook... if she needs to block
KM teaches boxing style evasion as well.. obviously bobbing, weaving, fading etc... are better against a huge opponent than a hard block....

km is not soft in that we would not teach someone to trap and lock the joint of the hook without disabling the attacker first...

i hope that clears things up


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 19, 2006)

tsdclaflin said:
			
		

> A forceful two-knuckle punch into the thigh or bicept of an oncoming strike could stop the above attacks. I was taught that when I block forcefully, it is really a strike to the attacking limb, that I should try to persuade the attacker to not want to use that same limb as a weapon against me again.



It can be a great tool to use in hurting your opponent (the striking not neccessarily the "two knuckle" thing) but its incorrect to say it will stop any attack. Simply physics proves that statement incorrect. Even if you did hurt the attacker, you still have to deal with their force hitting you.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Jan 19, 2006)

Yeah, it's usually just a distraction to allow you to enter. Getting a real "destruction" out of it empty-hand is hard. Now, put a knife in that hand and it's another matter...


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 19, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's usually just a distraction to allow you to enter. Getting a real "destruction" out of it empty-hand is hard. Now, put a knife in that hand and it's another matter...



Even with a knife you still must deal with their force. Now you can move and stab while your moving, but you can do the same with a strike. What we are talking about is force against force and even with a knife you still must meet their force, not a wise usage of your tools. The knife will damage them, but thats not going to stop their attack or force, you still will either meet thier force or you better move.

7sm


----------



## kmguy8 (Jan 19, 2006)

you people are kidding right.. 
of course putting a knife in that hand makes a difference
who in the hell is throwing a roundhouse at a guy with a knife...
i did not realize we were even discussing armed combat...
because we were not
no strike to the thigh is stopping my kick (w/o a knife)
*can't believe I had to add that*
and all you do if you block a leg kick with your arm is potentially get it broken by my shin while you expose your head onthat side for a secondary strike which IS coming.....


----------



## arnisador (Jan 20, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Even with a knife you still must deal with their force. Now you can move and stab while your moving, but you can do the same with a strike. What we are talking about is force against force



Well, in the FMA we don't think of the destruction--knuckles or knife--as force-on-force. We shift our body away from the strike and use a 'scissoring' motion. So, avoidance is how we keep from being hit (hopefully!), and the strike is not intended to stop the force but rather to be painful and hence distract as we enter.


----------



## MJS (Jan 20, 2006)

kmguy8 said:
			
		

> that 2 knuckle block thing is the biggest load of ***** I have heard in a while!
> show me that working once in a MT fight.. i have gone bare shin to shin against 200 lbs fighters for years.... you telling me your 2 knuckle block is going to make me rethink my favorite kick... lol
> i suggest you find a better school with more realistic self-defense!
> 
> ...


 
Coming from a FMA viewpoint here, the limb destruction is not designed to end the fight, as in the 1 punch, 1 kill mentality, but to open up other avenues.  Applied correctly, it is very effective.

Mike


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 20, 2006)

kmguy8 said:
			
		

> you people are kidding right..
> of course putting a knife in that hand makes a difference
> who in the hell is throwing a roundhouse at a guy with a knife...
> i did not realize we were even discussing armed combat...
> ...


If we lay off the "I'm superior" attitude and not address dynamic situations using only absolute terms, we can all get much more out of a discussion like this. Using the word "stopping" a kick is incorrect, even with a knife your not going to "stop" the kick or attack. As Arnisador said, its about moving and then doing the damage. 

But, lets get back to the original topic, "Core Principles of Krav Maga". In the Krav Maga system, would an attack to the opponents attacking limb be valid and would that attack come as force against foce (ie not moving and then doing damage, but meeting the attack with an attack of your own)?

7sm


----------



## kmguy8 (Jan 20, 2006)

did not mean to be superior...
the notion of attempting to stop a roundhouse kick with a punch to the thigh seemed .. well "misguided"  ... i reread my post and I can see how you thought I was condesecnding and appreciate your more tempered reply

no KM does not generally focus on distructions... of course blocking and countering is another thing.... certianly evasion can play a role, as can distractions, but....

KM principles will generally have you focus on diabling attacker.. not a part of them...
now, when facing a weapon... as I have stated in my earlier posts... that does change the priority and control of the weapon is paramount.. but we will usually focus on diabling or even terminating an armed attacker before any disarm is atempted......


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 23, 2006)

No problem, I respect your willingness to re-read your post and consider it. I completely agree that attempting to stop a roundhouse kick with a punch is "misguided" and I'll go further and say that attempting to completely stop a full power roundhouse kick with any technique is well...miguided. Evasive action must be taken regardless of whether that is moving in, out, under, hooking the kick, etc. Stoping the kick is only going to make you accept the force of the kick....its desired effect. 

Interesting the way you say "disabling the attacker.. not a part of him". I would agree with that mentality, but in my opinion disabling the attacker might involve a "destruction" type technique, but simply wouldn't stop there it would continue until the attacker is disabled. I guess my method would be to disable the attacker by overwhelmingly violent and aggressively nonstopping attacks....while yours would be making use of more precise "kill shots". Does that sound right? Ok reading that sounds like I wouldn't try for serious targets, I most certainly would, I just wouldn't pass by an attack in exchange for the chance of a "better target". 

So in an armed situation would KM not teach the use of Chin Na (joint locking/breaking) as a part of controling/disarming the opponant? 

7sm


----------



## kmguy8 (Jan 23, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> No problem, I respect your willingness to re-read your post and consider it. I completely agree that attempting to stop a roundhouse kick with a punch is "misguided" and I'll go further and say that attempting to completely stop a full power roundhouse kick with any technique is well...miguided. Evasive action must be taken regardless of whether that is moving in, out, under, hooking the kick, etc. Stoping the kick is only going to make you accept the force of the kick....its desired effect.
> 
> Interesting the way you say "disabling the attacker.. not a part of him". I would agree with that mentality, but in my opinion disabling the attacker might involve a "destruction" type technique, but simply wouldn't stop there it would continue until the attacker is disabled. I guess my method would be to disable the attacker by overwhelmingly violent and aggressively nonstopping attacks....while yours would be making use of more precise "kill shots". Does that sound right? Ok reading that sounds like I wouldn't try for serious targets, I most certainly would, I just wouldn't pass by an attack in exchange for the chance of a "better target".
> 
> ...




well, lots to cover in ths reply.  let me start by saying that the generally recognized founder of Krav Maga climed that one of the "arts" tenants was to be skilled enough to not have to do harm to your attacker.  Saying that, it seems that modern KM has gone a long ways from this tenant, especially in how we train beginners.  

I am going to have to reply to your issues out of order to make the most sense in this post as a whole.  In an unarmed vs. armed opponent the KM classic motto about controling the weapon then diabling the attacker stands (whenever possible).  ussually the controls KM imployes are not what I had considered "classic control" from my previous training (Chinese Boxing, Judo, Kempo, MT, & BJJ).  For example a KM control might be a simple redirection of a blade attack following to an arm grab then leaning on that arm pressing it into an attacker while punching to the throat or face repeatedly until then grabbing the weaponhand and using a more traditional wrist break and strip of the knife.  KM "controls" vs a blade never (at least I have seen) rely on afnct foorwork and evasion or on "passing under" a controled limb like some early Aikido / Hapkido knife work.  If you get a copy of the KM videos or buy "how to defend yourself against armed assault" I'll be happy to give you any instruction you like based on these sources... too much to explain without existing video or images to discuss.

in regards to controls and the "disabling" of armed assailants.  KM believes that most knife attacks are repeated movents.. (i.e the ice-pick stab over and over resulting in many stabs all along the same path) in most cases.  once people see effect with a stab they tend to contuinue that motion.... this fact is one they have researched in prisons and through testimony gathered in knife attack trials.. (Darren Levine being a DA in LA).  based on this KM believes the best way to stop these attacks is to "mentally disrupt" this pattern by assaulting them as forcefully as possible.  elbows, punches and strikes to the face repeatedly are most of this "disruption" not precise kill shots... way to hard to pull off under the threat of a real-life knife assualt (holy adreniline shot!)... we would not advocate precision rather volume and power shots.... until they stop moving or at the very least resisting...

SO it is fair to say that Self-defense in a more "severe" fashion is what is taught to students and encouraged from experts during training.  while our training does cover the locks and holds covered in all the chin na and hapkido video I have seen, it is ussually avoided until the civilian practitioner is very good and understands the importance of protecting thier life with deadly force if confronted with deadly force.

up until expert level, most students are taught to break the elbow or wrist of a defeated attacker rather than a traditional disarm, so hat is a KM distruction... leaving the knife on the ground and you free to escape.... however, at expert level more finesse is included and certian wrist locks and takedowns (often done on already broken limbs) are taught....

now, the military and police cirriculms differ in regards to the presentation of material.  A LE student can not redirect a knife swing and force it to the attackers gut or throat.... they must exercise more discretion, so depending on the laws in the state or country the material conforms to meet thier needs....

as for blocking a roundhouse... while I do teach some to step away during a shin or thigh block I actually teach most to step in delivering a right cross against a low roundhouse.   the knee flexed rarley is injured and the next day your thigh might be bruised.. but thats it.  most of my students have enough MT experience sparring that they have "conditioned shins" and going bare shin every once in a while they know does no harm to thier bodies.... so I am actually going to "have to disagree with you there" and say that yep.. sure can take those kicks no problem... 

hope that was not too much.. by the book from amazon and ask away... it does a pretty good job laying out all the weapons work for KM green, blue, brown, black and 2 black for the world to see.... I'd be happy to answer any specific questions.. don't buy the vidoes.. they are well.... not that great 

hope I answered your questions


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 23, 2006)

Seems we agree completely up until this point. And let me say I'm not a KM practitioner so its "ok" for us to disagree, but I'm interested in hearing your reasoning for this part. 



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> as for blocking a roundhouse... while I do teach some to step away during a shin or thigh block I actually teach most to step in delivering a right cross against a low roundhouse. the knee flexed rarley is injured and the next day your thigh might be bruised.. but thats it. most of my students have enough MT experience sparring that they have "conditioned shins" and going bare shin every once in a while they know does no harm to thier bodies.... so I am actually going to "have to disagree with you there" and say that yep.. sure can take those kicks no problem...


 I'm not sure I understand the first part completely. You teach a student to perform a low cross punch against a low roundhouse kick? 

As far as "taking those kicks no problem" I would ask why? I have very conditioned shins, and make ALOT of naked shin to shin contact...but I'm still not going to take a kick to the shin if I dont have to. My conditioning is my "last resort" or "secret weapon" if you will. If I cannot evade contact then my conditioning will keep me safe, I will not however rely on my conditioning to "beat your conditioning". Maybe thats just different methodologies, but weren't we talking earlier about a 14 year old girl defeating a 200 lb man? I wouldn't advise any 14 year old girls to attempt a shin to shin stop of one of my kicks, regardless of her conditioning. Also, taking a kick is dangerous, regardless, why take it if you can "not take it" ? But then again our fighting principels start with "Move rather than block", so it could just be differences in our methods of fighting. I still have to say though, having guys my size have to stop fighting when they make shin to shin contact with me makes me feel confident in my conditioning, but we must not get over confident and try to make conditioning into something it is not, it is not a shield, but more a cushion. I dont understand the concept of simply taking an attack because you think you can "take it no problem". What happens if you find out you can't simply "take it no problem"?

7sm


----------



## kmguy8 (Jan 23, 2006)

ahhh good reply... 
first, do not teach children.. never have never will
14 too young for me.. however IF i were teaching one that small of course evasion vs. an adult males shin kick is in order...

in terms of the low arm block question... in short,  hell no!  km never has you drop your gaurd to defend your legs and only in a few rare surprise instnaces do we drop our guard below the waist for the groin... even then the body follows..  what I meant by the right cross is that KM generally has you attacking in your defenses... so IF I am checking your kick.. since my body is going to rotate about 30 degrees during the check, I may as well throw a straigh right at the SAME time.. thus my defensive move is also offensive... this concept of simotatinous defense and attack is very common in KM and many somplie blocks (80%ish) have an acompanying strike DURING not immediatly after the block.... they both go on 1 rather than 1-2 

oh, and a final point about the shin battle... KM is talking street or some other self-defense application.. you'll only go shin to shin once... not repeatedly.. so why not just abzorb and fight... the skilled block will give your training away and is not needed.. it also likely stops from offering an instant offense of your own .....

good reply though... I enjoyed it... i look forward to talking with you more

edit... what if I can't take it ?   i have taken 100s in my day if not 10,000s and am fine.. if the one on the street is the one that catches me and downs me.. then thats a bad day.. but one that could have come any number of ways.. have to train the odds.. i have not met the shin kick to the leg that has stopped me in heavyweight  MT fights yet.. doubt it will be some street thug (although it seems funny to imagine a street attack with a shin kick anyway) lol.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 24, 2006)

kmguy8 said:
			
		

> ahhh good reply...
> first, do not teach children.. never have never will
> 14 too young for me.. however IF i were teaching one that small of course evasion vs. an adult males shin kick is in order...


 Ah, gotcha. But why should the "answer" have to change? Of course body mechanics are different, but teaching to move if you "can't take it" and take it if you can is a dangerous method to fight with, if you ask me. It requires you to completely measure your opponent before contact is made, you better be 100% accurate or you could get killed. If moving is appropriate for a 14 year old, its appropriate for me. - Just my own fighting bias.



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> in terms of the low arm block question... in short, hell no! km never has you drop your gaurd to defend your legs and only in a few rare surprise instnaces do we drop our guard below the waist for the groin... even then the body follows.. what I meant by the right cross is that KM generally has you attacking in your defenses... so IF I am checking your kick.. since my body is going to rotate about 30 degrees during the check, I may as well throw a straigh right at the SAME time.. thus my defensive move is also offensive... this concept of simotatinous defense and attack is very common in KM and many somplie blocks (80%ish) have an acompanying strike DURING not immediatly after the block.... they both go on 1 rather than 1-2


 Ok, I understand what you were saying. I agree, in fact thats one of our biggest fighting principles. We do many attacks at the same time, we even kick and punch at the same time, so I agree with you here.



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> oh, and a final point about the shin battle... KM is talking street or some other self-defense application.. you'll only go shin to shin once... not repeatedly.. so why not just abzorb and fight... the skilled block will give your training away and is not needed.. it also likely stops from offering an instant offense of your own .....


 I disagree...sort of. I'm only talking street self defense as well. I wouldn't limit the situation, you very well may go shin to shin more than once, what happens then. It seems you are basing your training on your own opinion of what your attacker will do to you. In reality the encounter should be over within just a few seconds so shin to shin may only happen once, but it may not. 

I completely disagree that using your skill is not needed, gives your training away, or stops you from offering an instant attack of your own. The whole reason for my training is to use it in this type of situation, why ignore it when its needed most? If you actually skilled, the opponent should be down and out before he even reaslizes you performed a "skilled block". If he then realizes my levle of training thats fine because if my training is good he will be out of the fight allready. If any move or technique takes away your ability to "offer an offense" then you shouldn't do it, period. But I am talking about a "skilled block" that allows for a myriad of offensive attacks. In fact the moving or "yielding" I'm talking about should cause the attacker to become even more vulnerable and maybe even off balance where my attacks could do the most damage. I dont understand why you would not use your training in fear it will "be revealed" to your attacker. I will gladly reveal my traiing to my attacker since the encounter is only going to last a very few seconds, one way or the other. Once my training is revealed the aggressive attacks will not stop until the encounter is completely over.



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> edit... what if I can't take it ? i have taken 100s in my day if not 10,000s and am fine.. if the one on the street is the one that catches me and downs me.. then thats a bad day.. but one that could have come any number of ways.. have to train the odds.. i have not met the shin kick to the leg that has stopped me in heavyweight MT fights yet.. doubt it will be some street thug (although it seems funny to imagine a street attack with a shin kick anyway) lol.


I just dont support playing those odds. I've taken thousands myself, in fact I have training parterns much bigger than myself that have to stop fighting after shin contact...I'm still not taking those odds. Why even allow the opportunity for my to get hurt? Thats not smart fighting in my mind. A survivor can be described as someone who takes no risks, yes? So...a survival approach to fighting could be one that dos not allow even the opportunity for you to become hurt or loose. The human body is a funny thing, if isn't just brute force that could injure your shin, just be aware of that. Plus, are you making the assumption that this "street thug" isn't wearing some type of "armor" around his shin? Unlikely as that seems, we must be un-assuming. I just have a different approach to fighting I guess...no worries. I just wont give the attacker even a chance to hurt me and that includes not taking anything from him/her. 



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> good reply though... I enjoyed it... i look forward to talking with you more


Me too, I really enjoy this discussion...thakns :asian:

7sm


----------



## kmguy8 (Jan 24, 2006)

ok, too much here to reply in a single text block. maybe even a single thread.... here goes..



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> If moving is appropriate for a 14 year old, its appropriate for me. - Just my own fighting bias.


yeah, I have felt that way and taught that way in the past, but this type of thinking changed for me... I approach a grappler different from a striker... i fight an opponent with a longer reach differently than if my jab as the advantage... same for the girl.. not one solution exists to every attack.. and different approaches have more merit than others based on the circumstrances... the case of the small girl (to me) obviously requires a different approach than my personal preference... hypothetical: would you concede the point were it a question of whether she should take him to the ground and grapple... size matters... it just does



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Ok, I understand what you were saying. I agree, in fact thats one of our biggest fighting principles. We do many attacks at the same time, we even kick and punch at the same time, so I agree with you here.


yeah, I think most good martial artists feel this way and most systems eventually train the students to respond this way, however, one of my other principles is that your weight should move in the direction of your strike... combo kicks and punchs (at the same time) can not have the same force... if it is a distraction or trick move then ok.. but I would be cautious about a simotanious punch kick move... I've done them... and to me they never had the power I liked... we might agree to disagree on this FINE point



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I disagree...sort of. I'm only talking street self defense as well. I wouldn't limit the situation, you very well may go shin to shin more than once, what happens then. It seems you are basing your training on your own opinion of what your attacker will do to you. In reality the encounter should be over within just a few seconds so shin to shin may only happen once, but it may not.


well.. vs. a low shin kick (knee strike) KM teaches a step away move, a leg switch (then kick), an abzorb (the one I favor) in the discussion here), and traditional leg lifting response (classic thai style)...  again, in the street where as you so aptly mention things should not last too long I prefer to absorb... seems like it offers the fastest response time, minimal movment and least chance for serious injury and off-balancing to me... personal preference... I understand and respect the others... just think they fall down the list of "most effective choice" a bit.. we'll have to agree to a difference of opinion here too....



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I completely disagree that using your skill is not needed, gives your training away, or stops you from offering an instant attack of your own. The whole reason for my training is to use it in this type of situation, why ignore it when its needed most? If you actually skilled, the opponent should be down and out before he even reaslizes you performed a "skilled block".


hmmm.. see your point.. did not mean it as a major point, merely a concept... like striking a defensive pose before anyone swings... makes thier approach more sophisticated.. and I like people to attack me inthe least cautious way possible.... if I evade thier kick and "then" it is on.. I gave away some of my advantage... if I were able to stay in place, properly abzorb the kick, and punch them with a good right cross to follow up with more strikes.. that pause and 2nd phase of combat never exists and I am safer as a result... that's my approach.. although I respect other ones it is the one I choose
secondly, in regards to it being the reason the block was invented so why not use it approach... it is used in ring fighting and came to us...on the street I have yet to see this attack (groin yes, but not round kick to knee) and it seems that the reply is to prevent cumulative (in very rare instances vs. an aware attacker can you take out a knee) damage to the leg to set up other attacks and limit the opponents manuverability in the ring over the course of the fight...  so in the street why make it fancy?



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> If he then realizes my levle of training thats fine because if my training is good he will be out of the fight allready. If any move or technique takes away your ability to "offer an offense" then you shouldn't do it, period. But I am talking about a "skilled block" that allows for a myriad of offensive attacks. In fact the moving or "yielding" I'm talking about should cause the attacker to become even more vulnerable and maybe even off balance where my attacks could do the most damage. I dont understand why you would not use your training in fear it will "be revealed" to your attacker. I will gladly reveal my traiing to my attacker since the encounter is only going to last a very few seconds, one way or the other. Once my training is revealed the aggressive attacks will not stop until the encounter is completely over.


hmmm seems I replied to this above and perhaps we do not disagree so much about this.. other than the actual dmage a low shin kick can do.... oh well, perhaps they affect you more than I (not a superiority comment just a possibility) in which case I'd say go with what works for you (were you my student I'd say the same thing to you, fyi)...



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I just dont support playing those odds. I've taken thousands myself, in fact I have training parterns much bigger than myself that have to stop fighting after shin contact...I'm still not taking those odds. Why even allow the opportunity for my to get hurt?


see... that's the rub.. I think you have a higher percentage cahnce of being injured evading or properly blocking rather than launching your own offense immediatly...on the street you nor anyone else will stop saying" dude, nice kick.. give me a minute"    shin to shin has never taken anyone down other than a novice...



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats not smart fighting in my mind. A survivor can be described as someone who takes no risks, yes?


having been in battle... no
taking risks is part of life and combat.. it is about taking the smart odds and being aggessive has hell once it goes live...
taking no risks is not possible in combat.... 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> So...a survival approach to fighting could be one that dos not allow even the opportunity for you to become hurt or loose. The human body is a funny thing, if isn't just brute force that could injure your shin, just be aware of that. Plus, are you making the assumption that this "street thug" isn't wearing some type of "armor" around his shin? Unlikely as that seems, we must be un-assuming. I just have a different approach to fighting I guess...no worries. I just wont give the attacker even a chance to hurt me and that includes not taking anything from him/her.


there is always a chance to get hurt or lose
armor around the shin... now I've heard EVERYTHING lol 
i repeat "taking the smart odds"
until that last htpothetical i thought you made sense..... the last is a little silly, do'nt you think?

ok so in summation
shin kicks to legs real danger is losing balance for the secondary attack that is coming...amybe taking the knee but really buckling thier stance for the incoming punches... i say ignore the kick step into it shin to shin chances are they will NOT see tha coming and you ate super stable in this situation and strike them...
if a student does as you recommend then they are evading or blocking then striking as the atackers punches are coming (since that is the timing in which they will be more than likely moving)... i see this as an unneeded danger brought about by a martial misconception about the efficacy of low leg kicks real danger....

next time your sparring try it my way... that was my first step to coming around to my way of thinking.. fyi, improved my sport fighting by about 100% due to increased focus on offense.. i teach it by saying that a right cross (with approriate hip and foot twist which positions the knee) is th eblock for a low shin (even rib height since the left arm in chin position brings the elbow over the floaters) kick... simple and effective... fyi, i ussually teach them to fight this way after teaching them to do as you recommend... your way teaches the fundementals of timing and angles... but it is not the most street effective way, IMHO


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 24, 2006)

kmguy8 said:
			
		

> yeah, I have felt that way and taught that way in the past, but this type of thinking changed for me... I approach a grappler different from a striker... i fight an opponent with a longer reach differently than if my jab as the advantage... same for the girl.. not one solution exists to every attack.. and different approaches have more merit than others based on the circumstrances... the case of the small girl (to me) obviously requires a different approach than my personal preference... hypothetical: would you concede the point were it a question of whether she should take him to the ground and grapple... size matters... it just does


 I can understand your point, but in a street situation I'm not going to know if the guy is a grappler or boxer, or what. Even judging reach is pretty hard to do in a full speed high adrenaline situation. I do agree 100% that not one solution works for every attack, but that doesn't mean that what works for one person will not work for another. If the 14 year old girl can evade, why can't we? Its about effeciency of movement. I think you are taking my "evasive action" as somethig much more complex than I'm intending. There are situations where you get caught and the kick is coming too quick to evade or anything, that is when you would "root" turn into it and enjoy all those days of conditioning you have had, but in theory that would only be becasue you messed up and were not able to evade. When I say "evasive action" it could be as simple as moving in, closing the gap, etc. What I'm against is simply taking the kick full force. Thats silly in my opinion. You use the term "absorb" that may be something other than what I'm thinking, and may involve yielding with the force, moving in, etc. In which case we would really agree. I'm just saying its much better to redirect, yield, evade the kick rather than take it. Takin the kick simply because you can leave much room for error. I'm not willing to allow that error to even have a chance to exist. Thats my philosophy on it.

As to the grappling...thats kind of a different situation since we are talking about her taking action to set up that situation. I agree size does matter, its just not a determining factor alone. I think in keeping with our original scenario we would have to make the hypothetical be that she is allready being taken to the ground, should she stay and grapple or attempt to get away. By the way, getting away can and should involve nasty aggressive attacks as well. 



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> yeah, I think most good martial artists feel this way and most systems eventually train the students to respond this way, however, one of my other principles is that your weight should move in the direction of your strike... combo kicks and punchs (at the same time) can not have the same force... if it is a distraction or trick move then ok.. but I would be cautious about a simotanious punch kick move... I've done them... and to me they never had the power I liked... we might agree to disagree on this FINE point


We may have to "agree to disagree" and thats cool, but let me explain just a bit more. In some cases the attack is a distraction or trick move, in some cases it is to get the opponent to react in order to set up a much more devistating attack, and in some cases it is to make contact and do damage with both. I understand what your saying about the force and body weight and it is a very valid point, but in the mantis system we train heavily on exploiting the smallest of mistakes such as overcommitting. We also train to unbalance our oppoenent even from a situation where they are attacking. That being the case, we tend to not put our whole body or force into a punch or kick, we usually "root" or sink downward when doin this in order to keep our center of balance low. We also build power from the waist and so we dont practice to push our weight in the direction of the punch. Against a skilled mantis fighting moving your weight like that could get your balance "stolen" and get you hurt. So one could question whether or not a mantis fighter has weaker punches and kicks, but we really tend to fight in a way that makes the opponent force or weight run into our attacks so we are using both our own force plus the force of the attacker....makes for some pretty powerful attacks. In fact, an attacker that moves their weight in the direction of their punch really helps make our return attack more powerful. 

Ok, sounds weak so let me give an example to explain:
The attacker does as you suggest and performs a right straight or cross punch moving his weight in the direction of the punch. Our goal (as a mantis fighter) would be to evade the punch by either actually moving the body (bobbing and weaving if you will), redirecting the punch with contact, or yielding the body so the punch fully extends. At this point the mantis fighter having made slight contact with the arm that is punching, at the exact moment of the punch reaching its farthest, the mantis fighter tightens into a grab and just pulls just a bit past where the punch should have ended. This send the attacker forward since his weight was also moving in that direction and the hand of the mantis fighter which grabbed and pulled then is flying forward as a straight punch into the face of the stumbling attacker. This makes the mantis fighters punch have the power he was able to create plus the power of the attackers weight coming towards the punch. This is a very static explination of one of our basic techniqus (Ou Lou Choy). Apply this principles to full speed combat and its becomes very usefull. 

OK, all of that to say that the power of a simultaneous punch and kick may not only be measured by the actual punch and kick, plus the amount of force needed is only enough to hurt the opponent or make them move into a more damaging situation. I dont need to explode to head of the attacker with my punch, just crush his windpipe. Get my drift? We may just disagree on methods here, but remember the target of the punch and kick can make a difference as well. 



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> well.. vs. a low shin kick (knee strike) KM teaches a step away move, a leg switch (then kick), an abzorb (the one I favor) in the discussion here), and traditional leg lifting response (classic thai style)... again, in the street where as you so aptly mention things should not last too long I prefer to absorb... seems like it offers the fastest response time, minimal movment and least chance for serious injury and off-balancing to me... personal preference... I understand and respect the others... just think they fall down the list of "most effective choice" a bit.. we'll have to agree to a difference of opinion here too....


 Again we may be havig a misunderstanding of the term "absorb". I am very much for a movement that lessens the impact of the kick while giving you an adventageous positioning, I'm just not for taking the kick hoping I'm tougher than the other guy. I see what your saying and I agree, you need the quickest response time, but I'm not saying go into a one legged pose to avoid the kick, just use body mechanics to avoid taking the full force. We use a knee raise block (Thai style) quite a bit, we also put weight on that front foot and turn into the kick (shin to shin) but usually only in a situation where it was too fast for me to evade. One great evading technique we use is turnin the body with the direction of the kick, closeing the gap even further, and applying a great attack be it elbow or whatever. This offers you great response time, aggressive attacks, lessened impact of the kick, and effecientcy of movement. But we can disagree  Thats the beauty of different styles. I wish were closer though, it would be interesting to train together a bit. :asian: I'm always up for learning new things!



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> hmmm.. see your point.. did not mean it as a major point, merely a concept... like striking a defensive pose before anyone swings... makes thier approach more sophisticated.. and I like people to attack me inthe least cautious way possible.... if I evade thier kick and "then" it is on.. I gave away some of my advantage... if I were able to stay in place, properly abzorb the kick, and punch them with a good right cross to follow up with more strikes.. that pause and 2nd phase of combat never exists and I am safer as a result... that's my approach.. although I respect other ones it is the one I choose


 Oh deffinitely! No no no, I wasn't clear enough. I by no means support any type of technique that creates a pause or gives away anything before hand. My training is completely hidden until the guy lays his hands on me, at that instant I'm planning on showing every single thing I've learned and trained in  In fact, one of our fighting principels is to be so overwhelmingly violent and aggressive you actually steal their aggression or violence. This really plays into effect if there are multiple attackers. You may veyr well take away their desire to fight wit hthe very first guy and regardless of whether the encounter continues you may just have given yourself an advantage. 

Ok, I'm getting off topic, I love discussig this stuff! 
I'm not implying a 2 phased plan at all. The evasive action would be immediate and should include aggressive offensive action. You can evade and attack at the same time, again something we really train on in the mantis system. We do alot at the same time. It would be a mistake to evade in a way that does not put you in either an advantageous position or attacking position. Again, by the term "evade" I simply mean moving in, moving out, moving with the kick, yielding the body, ducking, etc. The should be done with an aggressive attack as well. 



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> secondly, in regards to it being the reason the block was invented so why not use it approach... it is used in ring fighting and came to us...on the street I have yet to see this attack (groin yes, but not round kick to knee) and it seems that the reply is to prevent cumulative (in very rare instances vs. an aware attacker can you take out a knee) damage to the leg to set up other attacks and limit the opponents manuverability in the ring over the course of the fight... so in the street why make it fancy?


 Thats a very good point. It normally is used over a period of time to "wear down" the opponent, so why worry about it in the street. Well, you have a great point, but my fighting methodology involves not setting myself in danger. I'm in danger in the fight, but why expose myself to the posibility (however slight it may be) of more danger from taking a kick? Plus...to me, the kicker has to expose himself on some level to kick, why not immediately take advantage of that? I must say though that we fight so very close that we have contact at all times, so a roundhouse kick would be able to be "felt" before its really a danger. However, from a closing the gap situation, I want to evade and move into an atack and in close to the attacker, I can't effectively do that if I'm taking a hit or kick.

don get me wrong, I'm not for fancy at all, not by any means. I think its just the difference in our "styles" of fighting. Two ways to reach the same goal eh? I guess we do just disagree...thats cool.



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> hmmm seems I replied to this above and perhaps we do not disagree so much about this.. other than the actual dmage a low shin kick can do.... oh well, perhaps they affect you more than I (not a superiority comment just a possibility) in which case I'd say go with what works for you (were you my student I'd say the same thing to you, fyi)...


 Yes, I think we do agree more than it seems. However, I'm not saying that a low shin kick is so amazingly devistating...just that its uneccesary to take the contact. I would attempt to attack even before his kick is effective. Even a "stop kick" with my own foot. Like you said, every situation is different, but these are just some of my own fighting methods. The shin kicks dont really hurt, but why take it if I dont have to? I attempt to do only whats neccesary. Everything that is neccesary, but only that. 



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> see... that's the rub.. I think you have a higher percentage cahnce of being injured evading or properly blocking rather than launching your own offense immediatly...on the street you nor anyone else will stop saying" dude, nice kick.. give me a minute" shin to shin has never taken anyone down other than a novice...


 You very well could. However, I am talking about "launching your own offense immediately" just also incorporating an evasive type technique. I'm not saying shin to shin will take anyone down, in fact I dontww rely on attacks that "take someone down", I dont wait that long. If I punched an attacker in the throat, I wouldn't wait for him to grab his neck and fall down, I'll continue on, break and arm or two and send him to the ground. Before the throat becomes a conscious problem I've allready moved beyond 5 or 6 more attacks. 

Bottom line it all comes down to the actual circumstances of the situation, there are a million different scenarios. If the "evade" causes you more damage its a bad choice, however the possibilities of what you can do with an evade are almost limitless. I guess I'm getting pretty technical or "picky" but I'm just not for the idea of simply taking the kick to further your advantage, I think there are more effective even faster ways of doing so without having to take an attack. Again, diferences of methods I guess.



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> having been in battle... no
> taking risks is part of life and combat.. it is about taking the smart odds and being aggessive has hell once it goes live...
> taking no risks is not possible in combat....


 I agree, but I'm a very defensive type of fighter...until the time comes to be agressive. So I'm very much against introducing higher odds of getting hurt - especially when its unneccesary. "Taking the smart odds", to me means not introducing further chance of injury, ie taking a kick or hit. I'm in line with the "Agressive as hell" just not with the introducing higher odds of becoming injured or "loosing" by taking a hit or kick. Even if the kick doesn't do much damage, by evading I cna do much more damage than just standing there, takin the kick and trying to attack myself. Plus, if they are really skilled, I might have just offered a great opportunity for them to continue attacking, we change kicks into knees all the time after contact is made.



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> there is always a chance to get hurt or lose
> armor around the shin... now I've heard EVERYTHING lol
> i repeat "taking the smart odds"
> until that last htpothetical i thought you made sense..... the last is a little silly, do'nt you think?


 Silly? Yeah probably, impossible? No. I had a student who was in a fight with a thug who watched too many movies, took some flat metal and basically duct taped it to his shin under his pants. He made a sort of sock with the metal and kept it hidden. While this has porbably only happened once in the histoy of the world it was something completely un-expected. I'm all for being non-assuming. I'm reading a book called "Deep Survival" its awesome and deals with how basic almost unconscious assumptions often times lead to death in survival situations. In my day (when I was a kid, all of 15-19 years ago) it was hiding small baseball bats up the sleeve. 

I'm not saying this is the norm, but to ignore the possiblity that it could occure is not smart and is making a huge assumption that veyr well could get you hurt or killed. If we are to talk about hiding weapons, knifes and guns come into play as well. We must be completely un-assuming, to take a hit based on the idea that you can take it...is in my opinion an assumption that ust simply offers into the equation more risk than I'm willing to introduce myself neddlessly. Again, just different methodologies.



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> ok so in summation
> shin kicks to legs real danger is losing balance for the secondary attack that is coming...amybe taking the knee but really buckling thier stance for the incoming punches... i say ignore the kick step into it shin to shin chances are they will NOT see tha coming and you ate super stable in this situation and strike them...


 Again, your having to rely on chance. I like to take a more tactical appraoch. They may not see your move coming, but will they see a heel kick from me to their shin coming? Will they see coming form me a yield, moving in closer to them and applying an elbow strike to the face while their kick hangs in the air? Its not about what they will see coming, but what you can do to stop the engagement. This is a prime example of two differing methods, I chose a moving from the kick while attacking, you choose a moving into the kick while attacking....which works? Both. Which is more effective and safer? I guess thats yet to be determined.



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> if a student does as you recommend then they are evading or blocking then striking as the atackers punches are coming (since that is the timing in which they will be more than likely moving)... i see this as an unneeded danger brought about by a martial misconception about the efficacy of low leg kicks real danger....


 No, not at all. Your thinking of evading and then attacking as two seperate and thus timely things. They take place at the same time, just like your shin to shin contact and punch happen together. Also, you misunderstand my reasoning for not taking the kick. Its not because of the devestating affects of low shin kicks, but done in order to deceive the attacker, make him vulnerable and place me in a more advantageous position or directly into an attack. 



			
				kmguy8 said:
			
		

> next time your sparring try it my way... that was my first step to coming around to my way of thinking.. fyi, improved my sport fighting by about 100% due to increased focus on offense.. i teach it by saying that a right cross (with approriate hip and foot twist which positions the knee) is th eblock for a low shin (even rib height since the left arm in chin position brings the elbow over the floaters) kick... simple and effective... fyi, i ussually teach them to fight this way after teaching them to do as you recommend... your way teaches the fundementals of timing and angles... but it is not the most street effective way, IMHO


I have done it that way and continue to do it that way, I just prefer a different course of action if it can effectively be done. Also, our focus on offense is pretty heavy, more than most systems I've studied. The lines between defense and offense tend to blur. 

I really nejoy this conversation....I love this!

7sm


----------



## kmguy8 (Jan 24, 2006)

PM  to SSPM - since we have moved heavily from the topic posted...
any further KM questions I'll do my best to answer


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 25, 2006)

Natural progression of a thread is to be expected. I'll PM you back. 

7sm


----------



## Loki (Jan 26, 2006)

kmguy8 said:
			
		

> your statment is not correct. you are correct about being inside of range. however, simialir to many staff empty hand defenses, km teaches a redirection of the barrel controling the line of fire... while facing the opponent, then passing into a takdown in which the weilder is lying on top of the weapon with you in side control or back control on your feet...
> you could do this from behind.. but then the need to address the weapon is mute and one would be better served elimanting the target via other methods (we do have a section on sentry removal as well)



The need to address the weapon is essential, because if you go for a sentry takedown you risk the guy spraying the crowd, while a throw (done by grabbing around the stomach and the groin with the other hand) causes him to feel his imbalance and send out his hands to stop himself from falling on his face. Not perfect, but better.

kmguy8, what's your general/KM background, by the way?


----------

