# what makes "krav" krav?



## Runs With Fire (Nov 16, 2017)

Comparing common collective martial arts systems, what is the difference of krav vs the other standardized defense systems?  What one thing is the big difference? I'll hold my ideas for now.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 16, 2017)

Dedicated Extreme Physical Aggression and not stopping that aggression until the subject/opponent is completely incapacitated.

Krav as developed by Imi Lichtenfeld is a amalgamation of Boxing, Wrestling, Judo, Aikido, and Karate used with extreme aggression. Today it continues as an evolving system with bits of other systems having been added by different instructors so it is not clear cut to specify a universal curriculum though of the major Krav Maga organizations world most techniques are similar. 

Imi Lichtenfeld said competition isn't the same as fighting for your life. Completely different goals, completely different mindset. Not emotional aggression but pure physical aggression. If that aggression is not a major component of the training it isn't Krav Maga.


----------



## Runs With Fire (Nov 16, 2017)

I'd have to say the differentiation is in the mindset.  The mindsets of "I will survive" and "I will do whatever it takes".  Flipping the switch, as I have heard it called.  It's a resolve ,when necessary, to physically overwhelm at all costs.  


Danny T said:


> Dedicated Extreme Physical Aggression and not stopping that aggression until the subject/opponent is completely incapacitated.
> 
> Krav as developed by Imi Lichtenfeld is a amalgamation of Boxing, Wrestling, Judo, Aikido, and Karate used with extreme aggression. Today it continues as an evolving system with bits of other systems having been added by different instructors so it is not clear cut to specify a universal curriculum though of the major Krav Maga organizations world most techniques are similar.
> 
> Imi Lichtenfeld said competition isn't the same as fighting for your life. Completely different goals, completely different mindset. Not emotional aggression but pure physical aggression. If that aggression is not a major component of the training it isn't Krav Maga.


Basically what you said.  The hard part is teaching how to get there mentally.  Any fool can learn to be tough and mean, but that aint it.  That's just a bully.  And I don't like bullies.  The only thing unique to krav that I see is the resolve.  It's just not easy to help someone find that resolve within them when danger doesn't seem imminent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 16, 2017)

Runs With Fire said:


> I'd have to say the differentiation is in the mindset.  The mindsets of "I will survive" and "I will do whatever it takes".  Flipping the switch, as I have heard it called.  It's a resolve ,when necessary, to physically overwhelm at all costs.
> 
> Basically what you said.  The hard part is teaching how to get there mentally.  Any fool can learn to be tough and mean, but that aint it.  That's just a bully.  And I don't like bullies.  The only thing unique to krav that I see is the resolve.  It's just not easy to help someone find that resolve within them when danger doesn't seem imminent.


I don't think that attitude is unique to KM, nor even enusual in self-defense related MA. How it is taught/developed might be a distinguishing feature.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 16, 2017)

Runs With Fire said:


> I'd have to say the differentiation is in the mindset.  The mindsets of "I will survive" and "I will do whatever it takes".  Flipping the switch, as I have heard it called.  It's a resolve ,when necessary, to physically overwhelm at all costs.
> 
> Basically what you said.  The hard part is teaching how to get there mentally.  Any fool can learn to be tough and mean, but that aint it.  That's just a bully.  And I don't like bullies.  The only thing unique to krav that I see is the resolve.  It's just not easy to help someone find that resolve within them when danger doesn't seem imminent.



What makes you think this is unique to Krav?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 16, 2017)

The tough talk without anything backing it up is just that.

Which sounds meaner than it is. But if you are not somehow physically preparing yourself for a dog fight. Then you are probably not prepared to hold that attitude.

Yelling, rhetoric, laying waste to an unresisting guy. Just does not prepare you as well as competition.

wrestling teaches this concept best. Has since the Spartans used it. And this is because wrestling is just physically and mentally as hard as you can train.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 16, 2017)

Runs With Fire said:


> The only thing unique to krav that I see is the resolve.


Resolve is not unique to Krav.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 17, 2017)

Nothing is Unique to Krav.


----------



## Runs With Fire (Nov 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think that attitude is unique to KM, nor even enusual in self-defense related MA. How it is taught/developed might be a distinguishing feature.


Hey, heads/tails ;same nickel.


----------



## Runs With Fire (Nov 17, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> Like I said in the other topic, this mindset applies to almost all the systems out there.
> 
> @Runs With Fire , just a tip, check out the local JKD/Kali/Wing Chun/Silat or any other martial arts school. It might not look like it from day one, but essentially they all train to survive.


I have to say, I have never seen a kali or silat School. Never actually heard of them exept on this forum.  Not discrediting them, they just don't seem to have much presence here.


----------



## Runs With Fire (Nov 17, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> What makes you think this is unique to Krav?


Not solely unique to krav, but that is their big thing.  That's how I would differentiate between krav maga, crap maga.  The idea is that the mindset is 95%.  The techniques are to primarily teach you the mindset.  And teach you to fight smart second.


----------



## jobo (Nov 17, 2017)

Runs With Fire said:


> Not solely unique to krav, but that is their big thing.  That's how I would differentiate between krav maga, crap maga.  The idea is that the mindset is 95%.  The techniques are to primarily teach you the mindset.  And teach you to fight smart second.


that's just nonsense, , km is JUST a few techniques taken from else where, strung together, . There is NOT km mind set that is any different to any other half decent ma mind set. 
you are learning to destroy another person as efficiently as possible, that is the mind set, you either have that or you don't, attending km classes is no more likely to give you that than any other ma class.

the major advantage km has is good PR and marketing


----------



## Runs With Fire (Nov 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> that's just nonsense, , km is JUST a few techniques taken from else where, strung together, . There is NOT km mind set that is any different to any other half decent ma mind set.
> you are learning to destroy another person as efficiently as possible, that is the mind set, you either have that or you don't, attending km classes is no more likely to give you that than any other ma class.
> 
> the major advantage km has is good PR and marketing


 I'm not saying krav maga is the only realistic option.  The whole point is I think mist agree that self defense is mostly mental.  That said, as a person touting an effective combat system, I need to make sure that I do try and incorporate the mentality which ,by the way, anyone can achieve.  Some people are born warriors, but anyone can become a defender, which is a warrior for a short time.


----------



## Runs With Fire (Nov 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> that's just nonsense, , km is JUST a few techniques taken from else where, strung together, . There is NOT km mind set that is any different to any other half decent ma mind set.
> you are learning to destroy another person as efficiently as possible, that is the mind set, you either have that or you don't, attending km classes is no more likely to give you that than any other ma class.
> 
> the major advantage km has is good PR and marketing


I also say most martial arts schools do not get into much beyond philosophy and tradition. What I have seen is most "self defense" classes are heavy on philosophy and not so much on function. Just do it. Stop talking and theorizing and just do it.


----------



## Runs With Fire (Nov 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> The tough talk without anything backing it up is just that.
> 
> 
> Which sounds meaner than it is. But if you are not somehow physically preparing yourself for a dog fight. Then you are probably not prepared to hold that attitude.
> ...



I mostly agree, never wrestled but I think I agree. I would say that a big part of being tough is a mindset.  But a mindset without ability is just a go-cart that thinks he is a racecar.  So, off to the races.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 17, 2017)

Runs With Fire said:


> I also say most martial arts schools do not get into much beyond philosophy and tradition. What I have seen is most "self defense" classes are heavy on philosophy and not so much on function. Just do it. Stop talking and theorizing and just do it.


That’s an odd observation. My experience is perhaps the opposite. Too little time
Spent understanding re mental aspects of self-defense/self-protection.


----------



## jobo (Nov 17, 2017)

Runs With Fire said:


> I'm not saying krav maga is the only realistic option.  The whole point is I think mist agree that self defense is mostly mental.  That said, as a person touting an effective combat system, I need to make sure that I do try and incorporate the mentality which ,by the way, anyone can achieve.  Some people are born warriors, but anyone can become a defender, which is a warrior for a short time.



i think km is good IF your 22 and just completed basic training for the army, . How good it is if your 42 over weight a bad back and your scared of your own shadow, is up for debate, all fighting, and sd is fighting, is a mixture of mental and physical toughness, each with out the other is of little use.

you might be a warrior in your soul, but if your body is weak you are most likely going down. If you can turn scared people into mental killing machines is also a bit debatable.

i think km promises a lot, based on its army connection, but delivers very little in the way of actual fighting ability, certainly no more than most other arts, perhaps a lot less than some.   id rather face an over weight out of breath  km., than one of those 8 stone MTers those guys are killing machines


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> and sd is fighting


SD is not fighting.  This is SD, this is not fighting.






Fighting is what happens when SD fails.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 18, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> SD is not fighting.  This is SD, this is not fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fighting is part of self-defense, not a failure of it.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 18, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> SD is not fighting.  This is SD, this is not fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here we go again.

Read gpseymour’s rebuttal.  If you’re fighting against your will/consent, it’s the next phase of self defense.  The soft phase of SD failed, not SD PERIOD.  In SD, there’s times when there’s absolutely no opportunity to talk your way out of it, yet it’s still SD.  Think walking into your home, and an intruder immediately rushes toward you.  A woman opening her car door and an assailant grabbing her from behind without any warning.  I could keep going, but what’s the point.

Edit:  Just thought of a situation at the school my wife teaches at:  a student was walking down the hallway to leave school.  Another student was waiting in a recessed doorway and jumped him from behind.  By your logic, the kid that was attacked was fighting and not defending himself.  In British-English, one word - bullocks.

Not all SD is fighting, and not all fighting is SD, but fighting is definitely a part of SD in the appropriate situations.  Thinking otherwise is beyond stupid.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 18, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Here we go again.
> 
> Read gpseymour’s rebuttal.  If you’re fighting against your will/consent, it’s the next phase of self defense.  The soft phase of SD failed, not SD PERIOD.  In SD, there’s times when there’s absolutely no opportunity to talk your way out of it, yet it’s still SD.  Think walking into your home, and an intruder immediately rushes toward you.  A woman opening her car door and an assailant grabbing her from behind without any warning.  I could keep going, but what’s the point.
> 
> Edit:  Just thought of a situation at the school my wife teaches at:  a student was walking down the hallway to leave school.  Another student was waiting in a recessed doorway and jumped him from behind.  By your logic, the kid that was attacked was fighting and not defending himself.  In British-English, one word - bullocks.



bollocks.

Bullocks are a sort of cow. that ironically dont have bollocks.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 18, 2017)

Runs With Fire said:


> I mostly agree, never wrestled but I think I agree. I would say that a big part of being tough is a mindset.  But a mindset without ability is just a go-cart that thinks he is a racecar.  So, off to the races.



The thing is if you strike. And you go flat stick you just get knocked out. Which doesnt really take all that much effort at all. 

With grappling you can just go untill someone quits. I mean even if you get pinned 20 times. You in theory could continue. So it becomes much more of a mental torture game.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 18, 2017)

drop bear said:


> bollocks.
> 
> Bullocks are a sort of cow. that ironically dont have bollocks.


Damn iPhone autocorrect


----------



## Danny T (Nov 18, 2017)

Actually a cow is a mature female bovine so don't have bollocks at all.
A Bullock is a male bovine that has had the bollocks removed.


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Fighting is part of self-defense, not a failure of it.


I can work with that, but I'm defiantly not having "SD is fighting"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 19, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> I can work with that, but I'm defiantly not having "SD is fighting"


I am okay with that, Paul. My definition differs from the norm (most of what you define as self-defense, I call self-protection, to have a neat dividing line for discussions with students), but that’s just about how I use the word.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 19, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> I can work with that, but I'm defiantly not having "SD is fighting"


My formulation is "Most of self-defense is not fighting, most fighting is not  self-defense, but there is an area where they overlap."


----------



## Danny T (Nov 19, 2017)

Self defense/personal protection is a multi-layered process. Fighting is but one of the many layers; a lot of people place a greater emphasis on fighting compared to the other layers.


----------



## Martial D (Nov 19, 2017)

Runs With Fire said:


> I'm not saying krav maga is the only *realistic option.*



Hmm, if you say so.

We must have different definitions of 'realistic'.


----------



## Martial D (Nov 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Fighting is part of self-defense, not a failure of it.


Oh, Paul, you'll never give up will you.

What self defense is is pretty much written in the words, "self defense' (defending yourself). To defend yourself requires some sort of attack to defend against.

Words mean things.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 19, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Oh, Paul, you'll never give up will you.
> 
> What self defense is is pretty much written in the words, "self defense' (defending yourself). To defend yourself requires some sort of attack to defend against.
> 
> Words mean things.


That’s where my use of the term flows from. Most folks (at least most on here, and probably in general) include prevention in the scope of the term.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 19, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> My formulation is "Most of self-defense is not fighting, most fighting is not  self-defense, but there is an area where they overlap."



There is a lot of competition that isn't fighting as well. Diet, exercise, mental prep, finding the venue.


Or it is all fighting because you need one to be good at the other.


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That’s where my use of the term flows from. Most folks (at least most on here, and probably in general) include prevention in the scope of the term.


Not sure who you're replying to as they are on my ignore, yes most do include some form of prevention, but for others, mostly the people on my ignore list, it's only SD when someone in bar is throwing uppunches at them.  Anything related to prevention or avoidance doesn't count as SD to them.


----------



## Martial D (Nov 19, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Not sure who you're replying to as they are on my ignore, yes most do include some form of prevention, but for others, mostly the people on my ignore list, it's only SD when someone in bar is throwing uppunches at them.  Anything related to prevention or avoidance doesn't count as SD to them.


Proud to be on the ignore list of people that habitually make up lies and attribute them to other people. However, it simply isn't self defense if there is nothing to defend against.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 19, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Not sure who you're replying to as they are on my ignore, yes most do include some form of prevention, but for others, mostly the people on my ignore list, it's only SD when someone in bar is throwing uppunches at them.  Anything related to prevention or avoidance doesn't count as SD to them.



Hey. Hey. I am ignoring you!

Can you hear me? 

Why wouldn't self defence include avoiding someone throwing upperpunches at them?

Seems like an oversight there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Hey. Hey. I am ignoring you!
> 
> Can you hear me?
> 
> ...


He isn’t saying defending agains those isn’t SD. Just that there’s more to it than the physical defense.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 20, 2017)

i think the semantics on this has been beaten to death in so many threads already.  but at least i am leaning a lot about cattle.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 20, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Hey. Hey. I am ignoring you!
> 
> Can you hear me?
> 
> ...


I think I’ve joined his cute ignore list too, although I never got the “you’re now on my ignore list” line that’s somehow supposed to hurt and/or offend me.  It’s quite sad and pathetic.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 20, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i think the semantics on this has been beaten to death in so many threads already.  but at least i am leaning a lot about cattle.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> He isn’t saying defending agains those isn’t SD. Just that there’s more to it than the physical defense.



There is more to physical defence than physical defence.

A pro fighter doesn't just go fight everyone. He fights guys he needs to fight.

So where is the separation?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2017)

drop bear said:


> There is more to physical defence than physical defence.
> 
> A pro fighter doesn't just go fight everyone. He fights guys he needs to fight.
> 
> So where is the separation?


That's the $50 (AUS) question.


----------



## Kababayan (Nov 28, 2017)

Darn it. I don’t visit the forum for two weeks and I miss this great discussion.  I have a feeling that this post is going to be rather lengthy because there are so many topics to address here.  I apologize in advance.  To address the original post, Krav Maga definitely has a very specific signature, just as TKD, Jiu-Jitsu, Arnis, Aikido, and Kenpo do.  Basically, when you see a person practicing one of those arts you can identify right away which one they are practicing.  There isn’t any ambiguity. Krav’s signature is its aggressive reaction, use of hammers and knees, immediate bursting, continuous attack, and disengage/escape.  Krav also focuses a lot of time on scenario training. I can’t think of any other system that focuses so much time on verbal de-escalation, active shooter defense, third person defense, kidnapping defense, carjacking defense, and gun and knife defense. Also every Krav technique tends to look the same so that students don’t have 200 individual techniques to memorize. Its entire philosophy is about turning the victim into the aggressor and escaping to safety.  I thought DannyT’s original response described it well.


Regarding the rest of the topics that were brought up in this post, let me preface them by addressing the martial arts ego.  I think it’s safe to say that most martial artists have egos, or at least can be defensive regarding their chosen art.  I was 100% guilty of that when I taught Kempo for many years.  I used to say that Kempo was a “street fighting” art (even though it wasn’t) and it was difficult for me to acknowledge that Kempo had its limitations. It was when I stepped back from Kempo and began studying other arts that I was somewhat objectively able to separate reality from hyperbole.  Fifteen years ago I would have argued that Kempo focuses on the survivor's mindset, but it doesn’t.  Most Kempo teachers have their students do the techniques, and then cross out on guard and wait for the “up” command. There wasn’t many aggressively violent reaction drills using simple techniques that teach to disengage and run away.  I guess my point is that it can be difficult for students of a chosen art to be able to step back and objectively analyze their art.  I’m not saying that to insult anyone...that’s not my purpose at all.  The martial arts inherently creates an environment of “mine is the most effective” because, as teachers, we need our students to buy-into what they are learning. With that being said, here are my responses to the other topics discussed:


The survival mindset isn’t necessarily unique to Krav, but Krav embeds it into its techniques, which makes its philosophy and method of training unique.   As a contrasting example, my Tang Soo Do training never focused on a survival mindset. I would argue that most systems of self defense focus on the survival mindset, but most martial arts don’t. Runs with Fire and drop bear both brought up physically and mentally training for a dog fight (drop bear’s words) and I think they are both 100% correct with that analogy.  True Krav Maga embeds very physical drills into their training. Krav doesn’t practice punches in the air like my Kempo and Tang Soo Do training did. Good Krav does all of its basics while making contact on punching bags.  Krav is trying to instill the physical and mental aspect of self defense.  Plus Krav trains scenario training in every class...something most martial arts don’t do. One benefit that bjj and wrestling will have over stand-up arts, like drop bear said, is that they are always working with a resisting opponent in every class.   Runs with Fire is right...there is a lot of Crap Maga out there.  It reminds of back in the 90’s when dojos began advertising that they teach bjj just because the instructor wrestled a year in high school and bought a Gracie video.  There was a lot of crap jiu jitsu out there.


Regarding the comparison to Krav and JKD/Arnis/Wing Chun/Silat, they have very different signatures. I’ve trained with Vunak and his students and my friend is a Wing Chun instructor.  You definitely can make the argument that those arts have similar principles to each other, but they are very different than Krav.  I would also include Panatukan in there as well. I would not ever put any of those arts down, or any martial arts for that matter, as I love my Arnis kababayan (brothers and sisters), but they are different than Krav. Not better or worse, just different. I love Silat and am currently training in it consistently.  I’ve noticed that Silat seems to have large variations between instructors.


I would have to agree with Runs with Fire that “most martial arts schools do not get much beyond philosophy and tradition,” and I am surprised by the backlash of that statement.  I owned a dojo for many years and have been in the business for a long time, and know a lot of people in the business.  I can say with confidence that most martial arts schools teach techniques based on theory and tradition. I think it’s pretty well known that there is a disconnect between what is taught in traditional dojo and the reality of attacks...I just don’t think that it’s admitted that often.  That is why MMA gyms have become so popular; people can see a connection between what is taught in the gym and what they see on Youtube. Although I will say that the training in most most MMA gyms comes with a strong sport emphasis. I know that there is more to say here, but this post is getting very wordy.

I’m sorry that this post is so long.  I guess when you mix a great topic with an old-timer like myself (I’m not that old but I been around martial arts for awhile) words just start to flow.  Regarding the terms “fighting” vs. “self defense”, as was also discussed in this thread, I’ll save my thoughts for later, as this post is getting way too long.  Thanks everyone who read it in its entirety.  Thank you for the great discussions my martial arts brothers and sisters.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 28, 2017)

before we address a survival mindset that involes life or death street fights. I challenge you to wrestle hard out for three minutes. I dont care what style, Submission,pins whatever. But just go hard get subbed stand back up and go straight back in.

See if you quit before the three minutes is up.

See what your mind set is like when you are hurting and want to quit.

See the points where fighting off a pin or a position gets too hard and you give up.

Take note of your mind set before you wanted to puke as to your mind set during.


All of this will give you a realistic idea of where your combatave mindset actually is without having to get seriously messed up. And having to fight through that.

By the way when I started I gave up before three minutes. And worked my way up to fighting while giving up. I was there but I didn't want to be. To mabye just stalling that proccess a bit longer each time. But when I started I went from hero mind set to zero mind set really fast. And it is important to know that can happen.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> before we address a survival mindset that involes life or death street fights. I challenge you to wrestle hard out for three minutes. I dont care what style, Submission,pins whatever. But just go hard get subbed stand back up and go straight back in.
> 
> See if you quit before the three minutes is up.
> 
> ...


I don't think that's a solid indicator of whether a person will keep fighting when their life is on the line. I'll give up some stuff in training just because my toe hurts. But when my safety is at risk, the toe doesn't have nearly as much weight, based upon experience. It's a pretty good indicator of how long we could hope to survive if the attacker is competent (or lucky) enough to keep things going for a while.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think that's a solid indicator of whether a person will keep fighting when their life is on the line. I'll give up some stuff in training just because my toe hurts. But when my safety is at risk, the toe doesn't have nearly as much weight, based upon experience. It's a pretty good indicator of how long we could hope to survive if the attacker is competent (or lucky) enough to keep things going for a while.



Ok. what is your more solid indicator?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Ok. what is your more solid indicator?


I don’t think there is one that’s dependable for predicting someone’s willingness to continue fighting. I suspect (without any good evidence I’ve be n able to find), that how intensely someone is willing to go is relative. So someone who always goes soft, even when they are supposed to go hard, has less will to fight. But that’s just a suspicion, backed only by the kind of evidence prone to confirmation bias.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don’t think there is one that’s dependable for predicting someone’s willingness to continue fighting. I suspect (without any good evidence I’ve be n able to find), that how intensely someone is willing to go is relative. So someone who always goes soft, even when they are supposed to go hard, has less will to fight. But that’s just a suspicion, backed only by the kind of evidence prone to confirmation bias.



Except that placing someone under pressure increases their willingness to fight. At least under those same circumstances.

So basically in six months of doing that wrestling drill people will wrestle longer without quitting.


----------



## wab25 (Nov 29, 2017)

Kababayan said:


> The survival mindset isn’t necessarily unique to Krav, but Krav embeds it into its techniques, which makes its philosophy and method of training unique. As a contrasting example, my Tang Soo Do training never focused on a survival mindset.


The survival mindset is part of every martial art I know of. How much time and how validly it is taught in any particular school is more a function of the instructor, not the art.

I can quite easily find a Krav Maga school, where they do a poor job of teaching or even showing that survival mindset. You would say that what I found was a Crap Maga school. Fair enough. But if you went to a Tang Soo Do school that never addressed the survival mindset, then I say you may have really found a Tang Soo Doo-Doo school. 

I have nothing against Krav Maga. I just don't think that they have cornered the market on the survival mindset as much as they think they have. Whether a school has that mindset and or can teach / show that mindset is mostly a function of the instructor, not the art. That mindset training can be found while studying any of the martial arts, Krav included. That mindset can also be missing from any of the martial arts, Krav included.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Except that placing someone under pressure increases their willingness to fight. At least under those same circumstances.
> 
> So basically in six months of doing that wrestling drill people will wrestle longer without quitting.


Agreed on both points. I still don't think there's any evidence that translates to being more or less willing to fight for one's life.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed on both points. I still don't think there's any evidence that translates to being more or less willing to fight for one's life.



You dont think there is a direct translation between to being able to push yourself through adversity and being able to fight for your life?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed on both points. I still don't think there's any evidence that translates to being more or less willing to fight for one's life.



Here is a gallup study on sports that create the best navy Seals.

Study points SEAL recruiters toward athletes

An artical on mental toughness from a military perspective and the direct link between toughnes created though adversity. (especially athletics) and ability to perform in fights for life.

Mental Toughness


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You dont think there is a direct translation between to being able to push yourself through adversity and being able to fight for your life?


None I can find evidence to support. I think there's likely a correlation between whether someone will go with intensity and whether they will fight back with any intensity (or at all), but I don't see any evidence that being willing to wrestle longer (dealing with the discomfort and improving conditioning) changes whether someone will fight for their life.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Here is a gallup study on sports that create the best navy Seals.
> 
> Study points SEAL recruiters toward athletes


A good article, and I agree with the concepts in it. There's a lot of value in mental toughness and the discipline that comes with it.



> An artical on mental toughness from a military perspective and the direct link between toughnes created though adversity. (especially athletics) and ability to perform in fights for life.
> 
> Mental Toughness


I can't get this one to come up. Damned Aussie links to good, hardworking American articles don't work. I'll read it and reply again if it ever shows up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I can't get this one to come up.


Wait, does my computer have confirmation bias built in?? Damn you Microsoft!


----------



## drop bear (Nov 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> None I can find evidence to support. I think there's likely a correlation between whether someone will go with intensity and whether they will fight back with any intensity (or at all), but I don't see any evidence that being willing to wrestle longer (dealing with the discomfort and improving conditioning) changes whether someone will fight for their life.



That is the basic principle behind people who prepare guys for life or death fights.

8 Reasons It Wasn’t Easy Being Spartan


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> That is the basic principle behind people who prepare guys for life or death fights.
> 
> 8 Reasons It Wasn’t Easy Being Spartan


I'm not convinced that training is necessary for the fight itself, so much as for getting there. When we're looking at war, you need people who can withstand the rigors of what goes on between fights, and who will go to the fights, rather than avoiding them. It may be necessary - note that I'm just not convinced. When I look at the psychology of it, in a fight for life and death we're dealing with the reptile functions (emotions, fight/flight). When we're overcoming not wanting to do something, we're actually overriding the emotions and using executive function. With continuing to wrestle beyond being tired, it may be a mix of both, or it may be entirely executive function.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not convinced that training is necessary for the fight itself, so much as for getting there. When we're looking at war, you need people who can withstand the rigors of what goes on between fights, and who will go to the fights, rather than avoiding them. It may be necessary - note that I'm just not convinced. When I look at the psychology of it, in a fight for life and death we're dealing with the reptile functions (emotions, fight/flight). When we're overcoming not wanting to do something, we're actually overriding the emotions and using executive function. With continuing to wrestle beyond being tired, it may be a mix of both, or it may be entirely executive function.



You think life or death fights are not conducted consciously?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You think life or death fights are not conducted consciously?


I think the will to fight is not born primarily of the executive function.


----------



## Kababayan (Nov 30, 2017)

wab25 said:


> The survival mindset is part of every martial art I know of. How much time and how validly it is taught in any particular school is more a function of the instructor, not the art.




I understand what you are saying, but some arts embed the survival mindset into the training and techniques, while others focus on developing other aspects of the martial arts.  Individual martial arts philosophies are limited to the principles of the techniques that they teach. For example, Tang Soo Do focuses on proper kicking technique, rooted stances, powerful reverse punches, etc. If my Tang Soo Do instructor began teaching us stickfighting, trapping, and straightblasts, then it would no longer be Tang Soo Do.  It would be a hybrid art.  Aikido is another art that comes to mind where the techniques don't necessarily lend itself to a “survival mindset.”  A dojo across the street from me focused on Olympic TKD.  Their techniques and philosophies don’t lend themselves to the “do anything to survive” mindset.  I had a Kempo student who came from a Silat dojo.  He would cuss while he was sparring because he was trained to use violent verbal aggression while training.  His art embedded the “survival mindset” into their training. Some art’s traditional philosophies and techniques don’t focus on a survival mindset.  


[/QUOTE]I can quite easily find a Krav Maga school, where they do a poor job of teaching or even showing that survival mindset. You would say that what I found was a Crap Maga school. Fair enough. But if you went to a Tang Soo Do school that never addressed the survival mindset, then I say you may have really found a Tang Soo Doo-Doo school.[/QUOTE]

I think what Runs with Fire means when he calls it Crap Maga is when someone begins teaching Krav Maga without the skill level or understanding of true Krav techniques and concepts. He is not saying that if a martial art does not teach the survival mindset that the martial art is crap.  Your Tang So Doo-Doo analogy does not fit in that scenario because Runs with Fire is not suggesting that if a TSD dojo doesn't teach a "do anything to survive on the streets" attitude, then it is teaching bad Tang So Do.  Not at all. TSD has a different mindset then Krav, Arnis, Panatukan, Judo, JKD, etc. They are all wonderful arts, they just focus on different things. There is a push in the Krav world to keep Krav Maga from being turned into a generic term like Karate or Kung Fu.  Because Krav Maga  is such a recent form of self defense, it is easy to route the lineage back to the founder.  The issue is that people are training in Krav for a short period of time, getting a Level 1 Instructor’s certificate, and then video training the rest and teaching it as a complete art. They are also blending Krav with others arts.  I like to call it Krav-fu, and even though I have a Black Belt in Krav, I am 100% guilty of blending Krav with my other systems. When I train in Krav schools I tend to move like a Kempo guy and throw sidekicks where I shouldn't.  That’s what Runs with Fire was meaning when he references Crap Maga.  If an instructor can’t link his lineage back to Imi Lichtenfeld, or his main students, then there is a chance that a student isn’t learning real Krav Maga, just an individual interpretation of Krav.


----------



## wab25 (Nov 30, 2017)

Kababayan said:


> I think what Runs with Fire means when he calls it Crap Maga is when someone begins teaching Krav Maga without the skill level or understanding of true Krav techniques and concepts.


If you have a real understanding of your art (whichever art you choose) then you understand where and how the survival mindset exists within the techniques of your art. Sure, some arts have more to offer than just the survival mindset. But all decent martial arts do have that survival mindset. If one is teaching that art, without the skill level or understanding, to know where that mindset is within their art, then they are teaching a crap version of the art.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think the will to fight is not born primarily of the executive function.



Why?

I would have thought (after looking it up) It is precisely what I am trying to describe.

Executive Function Skills and Disorders

So you are in a fight and scared and dont want to be there. But you are trained to take control of that and act in a composed manner.

And I think this lizard brain is exactly the wrong way to address fights. And why people have these outlandish ideas and issues with them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Why?
> 
> I would have thought (after looking it up) It is precisely what I am trying to describe.
> 
> ...


That’s a different thing from fighting for your life. When you are working a door, your executive function does just what you said. It also lets you control yourself and be “professional” when some goober is mouthing off harmlessly. But when the fight/flight kicks in and we fight for our lives, that’s not executive function - that’s mostly amygdala stuff. The more we train, the more we give the executive functions a role in that, but I don’t think that’s where the will to fight comes from. 

There are folks here who are more up on the recent research than me - perhaps one will jump in to either correct or support my thoughts.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That’s a different thing from fighting for your life. When you are working a door, your executive function does just what you said. It also lets you control yourself and be “professional” when some goober is mouthing off harmlessly. But when the fight/flight kicks in and we fight for our lives, that’s not executive function - that’s mostly amygdala stuff. The more we train, the more we give the executive functions a role in that, but I don’t think that’s where the will to fight comes from.
> 
> There are folks here who are more up on the recent research than me - perhaps one will jump in to either correct or support my thoughts.



See the odaa loop. Is a military mental training concept.

And they are in the business of life or death fighting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> See the odaa loop. Is a military mental training concept.
> 
> And they are in the business of life or death fighting.


That's not contrary to my statement.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's not contrary to my statement.



In what way? It is a method to use executive function.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> In what way? It is a method to use executive function.


Yes, and I pointed out that one of the reasons we train is to increase the use of executive function.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, and I pointed out that one of the reasons we train is to increase the use of executive function.



*But when the fight/flight kicks in and we fight for our lives, that’s not executive function - that’s mostly amygdala stuff. The more we train, the more we give the executive functions a role in that, but I don’t think that’s where the will to fight comes from. *
*
*


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> *But when the fight/flight kicks in and we fight for our lives, that’s not executive function - that’s mostly amygdala stuff. The more we train, the more we give the executive functions a role in that, but I don’t think that’s where the will to fight comes from.
> *


Yes. And your point?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yes. And your point?



*I think the will to fight is not born primarily of the executive function.*

In this concept is there any mention of lizard brain.

Or is it all geared towards executive function?

Is there anything addressing the will to fight that isn't executive function?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 2, 2017)

drop bear said:


> *I think the will to fight is not born primarily of the executive function.*
> 
> In this concept is there any mention of lizard brain.
> 
> ...


The OODA loop is not about will to fight. It's about managing situations and how to enter the fight. Almost everything we do in training is about engaging more of the executive function in fighting, to avoid the loss of control that comes when the amygdala hijacks the system. There's probably an argument to be made over what "will to fight" really is - that's why I was hoping someone would comment who has kept up more on the research. My original point was that our will to fight is an emotional response to a threat (the choice among fight/flight/freeze). It's possible that as we introduce more training, we also introduce other processes into that selection. I'm not sure how conditioning affects that choice, from a process standpoint. I also don't know what the current success rate of changing that response is in the military. The concept, as I understand it, is to separate battlefield fighting from the FFF response selection, by conditioning the mind to not perceive it as a threat, but to be used to the situation enough to keep executive control. This is also part of the concept behind the super-aggressive language and attacks used in some RBSD.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Dec 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The OODA loop is not about will to fight. It's about managing situations and how to enter the fight. Almost everything we do in training is about engaging more of the executive function in fighting, to avoid the loss of control that comes when the amygdala hijacks the system. There's probably an argument to be made over what "will to fight" really is - that's why I was hoping someone would comment who has kept up more on the research. My original point was that our will to fight is an emotional response to a threat (the choice among fight/flight/freeze). It's possible that as we introduce more training, we also introduce other processes into that selection. I'm not sure how conditioning affects that choice, from a process standpoint. I also don't know what the current success rate of changing that response is in the military. The concept, as I understand it, is to separate battlefield fighting from the FFF response selection, by conditioning the mind to not perceive it as a threat, but to be used to the situation enough to keep executive control. This is also part of the concept behind the super-aggressive language and attacks used in some RBSD.


Suffering from the effects of over-reading (as per usual), I was just thinking about the commonalities between some notable self-defense moments in fiction and in real life. These included (but were not limited to): the sword duel between Oscar and the Eater of Souls in Heinlein's "Glory Road", the boar hunt in "Thais of Athens", the two big battles in "IT", Richard Cypher's "dancing with the dead" in "Wizard's first rule". What all these things have in common is - the protagonists ultimately emerged successful from them all, but not because they knew what they were doing. All these fights were basically forced on them and, somehow, even while bungling it, they managed to live through it and inflict damage on their opponents. The "Glory Road" duel in particular is notable in the description of that decisive maneuver Oscar ends up using. He admits to only remembering the maneuver, not even seriously thinking about using it, because it is extremely dangerous unless executed perfectly. And then, at just the right moment, his wrist takes over and he corkscrews the other guy. 

Yes, of course, it's all a fantasy, and yet... Had we nod had situations where we did something, having not a clue how we did it, to escape a dangerous situation? I think that's the point where you can tap yourself on the shoulder and say "yup, I am getting kind of good at this", because your mind and your muscles have reached the level of conditioning you are not even aware of. At the crucial moment, some weird little autopilot takes over and does what he does just right. 

I wish I could ask Captain "Sully" Sullenberger what it was like when he landed the plane on the Hudson. Considering the pilots train for stuff like that but don't really get to execute this particular operation on a regular basis, I wonder what level of conditioning he was at when he pulled it off.


----------



## Buka (Dec 2, 2017)

AngryHobbit said:


> Suffering from the effects of over-reading (as per usual), I was just thinking about the commonalities between some notable self-defense moments in fiction and in real life. These included (but were not limited to): the sword duel between Oscar and the Eater of Souls in Heinlein's "Glory Road", the boar hunt in "Thais of Athens", the two big battles in "IT", Richard Cypher's "dancing with the dead" in "Wizard's first rule". What all these things have in common is - the protagonists ultimately emerged successful from them all, but not because they knew what they were doing. All these fights were basically forced on them and, somehow, even while bungling it, they managed to live through it and inflict damage on their opponents. The "Glory Road" duel in particular is notable in the description of that decisive maneuver Oscar ends up using. He admits to only remembering the maneuver, not even seriously thinking about using it, because it is extremely dangerous unless executed perfectly. And then, at just the right moment, his wrist takes over and he corkscrews the other guy.
> 
> Yes, of course, it's all a fantasy, and yet... Had we nod had situations where we did something, having not a clue how we did it, to escape a dangerous situation? I think that's the point where you can tap yourself on the shoulder and say "yup, I am getting kind of good at this", because your mind and your muscles have reached the level of conditioning you are not even aware of. At the crucial moment, some weird little autopilot takes over and does what he does just right.
> 
> I wish I could ask Captain "Sully" Sullenberger what it was like when he landed the plane on the Hudson. Considering the pilots train for stuff like that but don't really get to execute this particular operation on a regular basis, I wonder what level of conditioning he was at when he pulled it off.



Welcome to MartialTalk, AngryHobbit.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Dec 2, 2017)

Buka said:


> Welcome to MartialTalk, AngryHobbit.


Thank you ever so muchy.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The OODA loop is not about will to fight. It's about managing situations and how to enter the fight. Almost everything we do in training is about engaging more of the executive function in fighting, to avoid the loss of control that comes when the amygdala hijacks the system. There's probably an argument to be made over what "will to fight" really is - that's why I was hoping someone would comment who has kept up more on the research. My original point was that our will to fight is an emotional response to a threat (the choice among fight/flight/freeze). It's possible that as we introduce more training, we also introduce other processes into that selection. I'm not sure how conditioning affects that choice, from a process standpoint. I also don't know what the current success rate of changing that response is in the military. The concept, as I understand it, is to separate battlefield fighting from the FFF response selection, by conditioning the mind to not perceive it as a threat, but to be used to the situation enough to keep executive control. This is also part of the concept behind the super-aggressive language and attacks used in some RBSD.



OODA  is about making the choice to fight through executive function. 

So that you dont have to rely on your feelings. 

Will to fight is quite simply a non event. You make a decision to fight. You either have the discipline to carry through with that choice or you dont.

You can train that discipline through adversity.

Then you can have a usable tool.

Or you are dependent on being in the right mood to fight based on who knows what. Hoping that you have some sort of correct fight flight response.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 2, 2017)

drop bear said:


> OODA  is about making the choice to fight through executive function.
> 
> So that you dont have to rely on your feelings.
> 
> ...


There's some good logic in that. I'm not sure how any of that directly links to being willing to wrestle longer creating an increased will to fight when in danger. You're making good points, but nothing that suggests more than a correlation between those two.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> There's some good logic in that. I'm not sure how any of that directly links to being willing to wrestle longer creating an increased will to fight when in danger. You're making good points, but nothing that suggests more than a correlation between those two.




Because when you wrestle you are either making a choice or you are letting you emotions make the choice.

The longer you wrestle the less your emotions factor and the more your conscious will to fight kicks in.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 2, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Because when you wrestle you are either making a choice or you are letting you emotions make the choice.
> 
> The longer you wrestle the less your emotions factor and the more your conscious will to fight kicks in.


That makes sense. Philosophically, it's a good argument. I'd need to find some research that supports the notion.


----------



## kravmaga1 (Dec 4, 2017)

Imi Lichtenfeld Sde-Or was the founder of the Krav Maga method. Krav Maga is a real life self defense techniques which anybody can learn it.


----------



## Gyuki (Mar 9, 2022)

Runs With Fire said:


> Comparing common collective martial arts systems, what is the difference of krav vs the other standardized defense systems?  What one thing is the big difference? I'll hold my ideas for now.


One main concept that I have not necessairly seen in other martial system was Retzev
Kravology  –  Retzev: Jet Fuel for Your Krav Maga! this may give an exemple of how it works. 
It's basically the concept of continual movement. Obvioulsy it is something I have naturally done in other arts but it was not explained to me in that concept or way. 

The main principles of KM are also special:


Simultaneous defense and attack (One of the first things taught via the 360 defense)
Developing physical aggression (not to be confused with emotional aggression or anger), with the view that physical aggression is the most important component in a fight. (Mentally being able to bring oneself to be able to act) (In theory all MA do that but KM seems to have a heavy emphasis on that right from the start)
Continuing to strike the opponent until they are completely incapacitated. (Not leaving openings as in a sparring or competitive fight where one give hits and the other replies, this is more of a hit until the other does not pose a danger, focus on that specifically)
Attacking pre-emptively or counterattacking as soon as possible (Identifying pre combat moments, positioning and decision to act)
Using any objects at hand that could be used to hit an opponent. (Bat, whip, shield like objects are studied and trained with; training with a chair as a weapon is not unusual)
Targeting attacks to the body's most vulnerable points, such as: the eyes, neck or throat, face, solar plexus, groin, ribs, knee, foot, fingers, liver, etc. (Nothing unusual here, except maybe the actual training of it and the understanding of what they are for: opening other opportunities, One can't rely on that to end a fight it is simply an extra tool for those who know what they are doing)
Using simple and easily repeatable strikes. (Nothing special here)
Maintaining awareness of surroundings while dealing with the threat in order to look for escape routes, further attackers, or objects that could be used to strike an opponent. (All techniques finish with a scanning of the area, failure to do so at the exam will result in failure of grade, awareness is stressed as a component of the art)
Developing muscle memory for quick reaction in fight. (That's just what any martial art does....)
Recognizing the importance of and expanding on instinctive response under stress (That hasn't been true in my school. It has been mentioned however those were things I read of my own accord and choice. Not part of the curriculum but some books and authors will be recommended, no written exam on them however.) 

So it does have many things that are unique to it. Not every school will go in depth with all the concepts and to be very honest, most schools who advertise teaching KM are a MMA "not so great" gym that adds groin strikes as the KM name has been popular....

A proper school will be based in these concept and teach that way. In the end, it does look very different then MMA or lots of other martial arts. If you see people sparring KM and it looks like MMA done poorly with groin strikes then they are not learning KM nor does the person teaching it understands it... 

KM is one if not the most amazing Martial system I had the chance to study, it is also the one I would least recommend based on the fact that I can only assume you would be getting poor quality.... Poor quality is more prevalent and that is a sad state of thing.


----------

