# Krav Maga



## Kroy (Oct 4, 2003)

Is there a Krav Maga section here?


----------



## pknox (Oct 4, 2003)

I don't think there is a specific Krav Maga section.  After doing a search on "Krav Maga", it seems most of the posts appear in either "General Self Defense" or "Western Martial Arts."


----------



## Kroy (Oct 4, 2003)

Thanks, I'll check around.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 4, 2003)

If there is sufficient interest we can add one but I don't really think there is. A search will turn up many threads on it though.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 21, 2003)

Anyone here practice this system? I would be interested in hearing more about it. I don't know much of all about it, besides general stuff like its country of origin and such. What type of techniques are used? Is it focused on grappling? That type of stuff.

7sm

PS: if there is a thread allready posted, I appologize.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 21, 2003)

You'll find a lot of info.--search the site for _krav_.


----------



## MJS (Oct 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *Anyone here practice this system? I would be interested in hearing more about it. I don't know much of all about it, besides general stuff like its country of origin and such. What type of techniques are used? Is it focused on grappling? That type of stuff.
> 
> 7sm
> ...



While I'm not an expert on the topic, I have trained a little in it with a friend who has trained with a KM Inst. in NY.  I'll do my best to answer the questions.

As for the techs.  They are all pretty simple.  Usually the same defense or method of defense is used for the same techs.  For example, I gave, on another thread, an example of the 'plucking' movement that is used for chokes.  The same movement is used for a choke from the front, rear and side.  The idea of this is good because it really doesnt require the defender to think of what defense to do.  As for the grappling, there is some, though I'm not sure if its to the extent as if you went to a BJJ school.

The weapon techs.  The knife work is something that I'm not crazy about.  I've definately seen some other things that I think I'd try first.  The gun defense-  this has been talked about alot, but IMO, I'm pretty impressed with what they teach for a gun defense.  

Mike


----------



## pknox (Oct 22, 2003)

One of the other things I've heard is that the rank tests are rather extreme in their duration and intensity.  I believe at least part of the reason is to see how the practitioner operates under high levels of both physical and mental stress.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 22, 2003)

I have worked with the Krav school down the road from me off and on.  THe big difference between KM and other eastern/ethnic arts, it is military based and still practiced by the military/LEO.

It is like TKD because of the government recognition and such but the stuff in the states is different from the stuff that I saw the Korean Marines using during my active duty days.  It is very sport/athletic based here.  In the K. Marines, it is VERY combat based in technique and training.

Krav, like the Korean Marine TKD is a combatives system.  Unlike TKD it is a very 'simplified' art compared to other martial arts if you look only at the technique list.  It is designed to speed up response time because the options menu is really short. The emphasis is on simplicity and intensity and not the "Sweet Science"/Artistry emphasis of most American practiced arts (I said MOST, don't get all defensive out there) and the testing environment is as close to real as they can reasonably simulate - everytime.  I respect their testing practices and quality control.  It isn't my system of choice, but I think it's good for people who really have no gut check background of fighting/contact sports...and need to know how intense a fight can really be.

Though I don't know about the universal popularity, I would not want to be on the business end of a Krav Magan who was well trained!

Paul Martin


----------



## pknox (Oct 22, 2003)

Paul -

I have also been told that KM places a great deal of emphasis on developing fitness.  Was this also the case with the school you worked with?


----------



## MJS (Oct 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pknox _
> *Paul -
> 
> I have also been told that KM places a great deal of emphasis on developing fitness.  Was this also the case with the school you worked with? *



A few years ago, I attended a KM seminar in MA.  It was taught be the guys from California.  The warmup was, IMO, very intense.  

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 23, 2003)

I didn't really find the warm ups and work out very intense, but I did only attend a few classes, and have not seen the testing first hand.

They do offer a sparring class and a cardio kick type of conditioning class.  The classes I attended were for lower level students and more technical development than fitness.  I think it is the whole package that is available and the intensity goes up as the rank increases.  By the way that the instructors moved, the upper ranks are pretty good.

Paul Martin


----------



## plumtree (Apr 22, 2004)

I have studied Krav Maga for about a year. Let me tell you, it is a very effective art. No fancy moves here. Just techniques that are going to cause severe injuries.


----------



## MJS (Apr 22, 2004)

plumtree said:
			
		

> I have studied Krav Maga for about a year. Let me tell you, it is a very effective art. No fancy moves here. Just techniques that are going to cause severe injuries.



Yes, I agree with that!  That is what drew my attention to the art in the first place.  Granted, like every art, there will always be pros and cons.  However, its empty hand techs. are very effective.  There is nothing fancy about it...everything is simple, easy to remember and to the point!!

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 22, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> Yes, I agree with that!  That is what drew my attention to the art in the first place.  Granted, like every art, there will always be pros and cons.  However, its empty hand techs. are very effective.  There is nothing fancy about it...everything is simple, easy to remember and to the point!!
> 
> Mike



Simplicity is the key. Don't take this the wrong way because I like the 'bang' factor in Krav, but it is set up as a one goal system:  learn the equivalent of only the Green belt requirements of your average trad art, but be able to do it in your sleep, with full bore intensity and a high level of consistent effectiveness.  As a system it makes it a 'fast track' learning curve relative to most other MA's.

I like the systematic movement toward a clear goal.  Produces more effective students.  Now, once that is established is there an artistic factor to entice long term student attendance or higher level tactical theory that you might be introduced to?


----------



## MJS (Apr 22, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I like the systematic movement toward a clear goal.  Produces more effective students.  Now, once that is established is there an artistic factor to entice long term student attendance or higher level tactical theory that you might be introduced to?



I've heard that the student body at the LA school is very good.  Again, I've never traveled there, but from what I've seen, they dont seem to be hurting for students.  I"m far from an expert in this art, but from what my KM inst. told me, is that once you start to progress towards the higher levels, there are more advanced things that are covered.

I hope that this was a help!

Mike


----------



## pknox (Apr 22, 2004)

plumtree -

Seems like you are really enjoying yourself!  I just had a couple of quick questions for ya:

1. Do you study at a K-M only school, or one that teaches K-M alongside another art?

2. What do you think of the fitness aspects?  I've heard that it can be quite challenging.

3. It seems to me that K-M is designed to use simple (not necessarily easy, but simple, as in fewer in number and with less required physical complexity to perform) movements.  After you've been in the art for a year or so, what, if anything, changes?  Does K-M begin to employ more grafting (like Kenpo, for example)?  Does the basic strategy change at all?


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 22, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Anyone here practice this system? I would be interested in hearing more about it. I don't know much of all about it, besides general stuff like its country of origin and such. What type of techniques are used? Is it focused on grappling? That type of stuff.
> 
> 7sm
> 
> PS: if there is a thread allready posted, I appologize.




It was originally devellopped, and is still used,  by the IDF.


----------



## ob2c (Apr 23, 2004)

Systems like Krav Maga have a lot going for them in their realistic training and easily learned and used techniques. I'm not against learning a "reality" based art. But I have a couple of problems with KM, at least what I've seen. First, their weapons defenses- both gun and knife defenses rely on traping the weapon hand or arm in a bent elbow. Too easily countered with a pistol, and worse with a knife, you are more likely to get a crippling cut than to effectively control the weapon. Second, they have a tendency to lean into their strikes or grabs, sometimes to the point that it appears that they are depending on the opponent to hold them up.

Now, I'll be the first to say that I'm not well versed or even too familiar with the style, and what I saw might not be representative of the system as a whole. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has a better perspective on this system. But for what I know at this point, I would not recomend or train in KM.


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 23, 2004)

The biggest problem with styles like KM is that they are developped for the military. A loy of techniques are just too brutal for a civilian confrontation. 
Also remember that there is no defense against a gun. Somebody points a gun a you, unless you are 200% certain that they will pull the trigger no matter what, you comply.


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2004)

ob2c said:
			
		

> Systems like Krav Maga have a lot going for them in their realistic training and easily learned and used techniques. I'm not against learning a "reality" based art. But I have a couple of problems with KM, at least what I've seen. First, their weapons defenses- both gun and knife defenses rely on traping the weapon hand or arm in a bent elbow. Too easily countered with a pistol, and worse with a knife, you are more likely to get a crippling cut than to effectively control the weapon. Second, they have a tendency to lean into their strikes or grabs, sometimes to the point that it appears that they are depending on the opponent to hold them up.
> 
> Now, I'll be the first to say that I'm not well versed or even too familiar with the style, and what I saw might not be representative of the system as a whole. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has a better perspective on this system. But for what I know at this point, I would not recomend or train in KM.



You bring up many good points.  I'll do my best to clear some things up for you.  As for the empty hand defense.  From what I've seen, its very effective and to the point.  Many of the techs. have the same concepts, so that takes away the problem of having to memorize a tech for a front choke and then a different one for a rear choke....both ways of removing the hands can be used no matter how they are grabbing you. 

The weapon techs.  I'll admit that I'm not impressed with the knife work.  I've seen much better in the FMA that I also study.  As for the gun defense...its pretty good, but there is always room to improve.  One thing that they do, is simultaneously move, block and strike.  They are pretty much going on the mult. hit idea, to take the attackers mind off of the weapon and onto the strikes that they are being hit with.

I hope that this was a help.  Feel free to ask more questions if you have them.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> The biggest problem with styles like KM is that they are developped for the military. A loy of techniques are just too brutal for a civilian confrontation.



Well, I'm not sure what art you study, but in addition to the KM, I also do Kenpo, BJJ, and Arnis, and I can assure you that there are some pretty brutal techs. in Kenpo as well.  Its pretty much up to the defender to exercise enough control for the situation that he/she is in.  If there was no way of walking away, talking your way out, or doing a controlling move, then a brutal move is the only other option.  Also, I look at it like this.  If someone tries to attack you, your family, break into your house, etc. then IMO, they ddeserve what they get! And if that means a broken nose, then maybe they'll think twice before they attack someone again!  




> Also remember that there is no defense against a gun. Somebody points a gun a you, unless you are 200% certain that they will pull the trigger no matter what, you comply.



Yeah, that is a good theory to try and live by, but let me ask you this.  How can you be 200% certain? I mean, I've heard about cases where the store owner complies and still gets shot!  Youre pretty much in a no win situation.  And yes, I know that you're car, wallet, money, etc. can be replaced, but again, how can you be so sure that you won't get shot.  I'd rather take the chance and defend myself.

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 23, 2004)

I got a book on the elite military fighting arts and it mentions Krav.

I think some of the 'weaknesses' that I have seen is the dominance on tactical application over technical skill early in the training.  That can lead to the reinforcement of bad habits like 'leaning' and such.

As an outside to the art, I see that the training is organized to be 'effective first' and they rely on training up the grit and commitment to take the initiative in a SD situation.  I think that the idea is that the shear agressiveness is more important to focus on early than technical perfection.  Later in the training, the technical refinement and such is really more emphasized.   I notice that the students who participate in the 'boxing style' conditioning classes and sparring sections really improve technically from the practice.


I have the same concerns about TKD and other systematic rigidness to traditional 'practice' but loosing sight of the systematic 'goals.'  With the first, everyone has to follow the same path (totally counter to the idea of being adaptive and fluid in the moment of critical need.), in the second you know what the end results should be, and you know what the tools to get there are and you (as instructor) can set up the training so that it 'fits' the student's current level of skill/fitness/toughness.

Military based systems tend to use training models designed for military troops.  This is fine, but it needs to be adapted some for the wider range of types and personal fitness and mentallities walking into a civilian program.


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> As an outside to the art, I see that the training is organized to be 'effective first' and they rely on training up the grit and commitment to take the initiative in a SD situation.  I think that the idea is that the shear agressiveness is more important to focus on early than technical perfection.  Later in the training, the technical refinement and such is really more emphasized.   I notice that the students who participate in the 'boxing style' conditioning classes and sparring sections really improve technically from the practice.



Very good points here.  Due to the simplicity of the techs. it is possible to combine both the technical aspect and the agressiveness aspect all into one.  While this is not looked good upon by some, it is apparent by the effectivenss of the KM material, that this concept does in fact work!

Mike


----------



## MMA Combatives (Apr 23, 2004)

I just received the 5-DVD set yesterday. Not very impressed to say the least, and concerned about some of the gun disarm techniques. Barrel either pointed directly at a vital area during the disarm, or too close for comfort. I would have to agree with other postings elsewhere that whatever this style has in a dangerous area of the world is lost upon arrival here. However, for a beginner or those who like high quality video productions, it is acceptable, but for an experienced MA instructor wanting to incorporate "reality techniques" into an existing style, I would opt for FIGHT or Jim Wagner's series.


----------



## ob2c (Apr 23, 2004)

Thanks for the info.



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> Many of the techs. have the same concepts, so that takes away the problem of having to memorize a tech for a front choke and then a different one for a rear choke....both ways of removing the hands can be used no matter how they are grabbing you.



This simplicity is one of the strengths of the reality/ combative arts. They are quickly learned and effective as far as they go, which is what they were designed for.



> weapon techs...  One thing that they do, is simultaneously move, block and strike.  They are pretty much going on the mult. hit idea, to take the attackers mind off of the weapon and onto the strikes that they are being hit with.



This is generally a good concept in any system. Where KM falls short is in not considering the reaction of the armed opponent. The natural reaction is to back away, especially if the counter assault goes to the head/ eyes. With a knife, trying to trap it in the bent elbow, if you are a little late you've actually put him into the counter and put a target rich part of your anatomy where he can't miss. Then also, he may recognize what you are trying to do and counter on his own, again against a very vulnerable part of your arm, which you gave him.

With a pistol, moving him back is the worst thing you can let him do. Once you've closed the gap, you absolutely have to maintain control of him and the weapon. Trying to trap it in your elbow, all he has to do is drop his own elbow inward to counter the pin and bring the gun into alignment with the underside of your jaw. And again, striking simultaneously at his head might cause him to react by moving back. If you miss the trap by even a little, he has just brought the muzzle into direct allignment with your center, and your own forearm guided him there as your attack forced him into the counter.

I hope these descriptions are clear, and these are just a couple of applications that I see a glaring deficiency in the KM method. But again, I can't speak to the overall effectivness of their system, having had minimal exposure to it.


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2004)

MMA Combatives said:
			
		

> I just received the 5-DVD set yesterday. Not very impressed to say the least, and concerned about some of the gun disarm techniques. Barrel either pointed directly at a vital area during the disarm, or too close for comfort. I would have to agree with other postings elsewhere that whatever this style has in a dangerous area of the world is lost upon arrival here. However, for a beginner or those who like high quality video productions, it is acceptable, but for an experienced MA instructor wanting to incorporate "reality techniques" into an existing style, I would opt for FIGHT or Jim Wagner's series.



I'm assuming that you're talking about the set with the CA. group?  If thats the case, then yes, I also have those.  Its been a while since I've viewed them, but didnt they turn their body at the same time as they were executing the tech.?  I think another thing that they are basing these defenses on, is this.  When the attacker is IFO the victim, they are assuming that the attacker is going to be giving the victim an order- "Give me your wallet!" "Put your hands up!" etc.  So, going on this movement, they are then basing a defense off of it.  The attacker is not going to be thinking, (so we hope) that the victim will do anything but comply with the demands.

I notice that you mentioned the FIGHT series.  Now, I was under the impression that this series is pretty much the same as KM, although it has a different name.  Also, if you look at that web site, there is a gun disarm clip, that is the same as one that is taught in the KM material.  I have not seen that series, but in your opinion, how much difference is there between FIGHT and the KM tapes you have??

Mike


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2004)

ob2c said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info.



You're welcome!  Glad I could help! :asian: 





> This simplicity is one of the strengths of the reality/ combative arts. They are quickly learned and effective as far as they go, which is what they were designed for.



This is one of the main reasons why I like it so much!





> This is generally a good concept in any system. Where KM falls short is in not considering the reaction of the armed opponent. The natural reaction is to back away, especially if the counter assault goes to the head/ eyes. With a knife, trying to trap it in the bent elbow, if you are a little late you've actually put him into the counter and put a target rich part of your anatomy where he can't miss. Then also, he may recognize what you are trying to do and counter on his own, again against a very vulnerable part of your arm, which you gave him.



Very true!  Giving your attacker the inside of your arm exposes vital areas.  However, like the FMA, KM, is using the body as well to ensure that limb stays in place.  



> With a pistol, moving him back is the worst thing you can let him do. Once you've closed the gap, you absolutely have to maintain control of him and the weapon. Trying to trap it in your elbow, all he has to do is drop his own elbow inward to counter the pin and bring the gun into alignment with the underside of your jaw. And again, striking simultaneously at his head might cause him to react by moving back. If you miss the trap by even a little, he has just brought the muzzle into direct allignment with your center, and your own forearm guided him there as your attack forced him into the counter.



Another good point!  Let me clear a few things up here.  The defense against the gun from the front:  In this situation, you're turning your body at the same time you raise your hands, and are grabbing the barrel of the weapon.  You are, at the same time, pushing the weapon down, while taking a slight step forward, and also executing a punch to the face.  After a few hits, the gun is then removed from the hand.  

From the rear: As you're turning, you are capturing the arm with yours, and again marrying it to your chest.  As you complete the turn, you're following up with an elbow to the head.  

I do see your points and concerns though.  So far, the best gun defense tape I've seen has these 2 guys in it.  They are using a gun that fires a wax bullet.  They are wearing gear for their own protection, but its very interesting, because there is no way to say that the tech worked if it really didnt due to the red mark.  



> I hope these descriptions are clear, and these are just a couple of applications that I see a glaring deficiency in the KM method. But again, I can't speak to the overall effectivness of their system, having had minimal exposure to it.



Yes, they were clear!!  And again, I am far from an expert on this art.  My inst. received his KM training from a KM inst. in NY.  He has also had some exp. with the CA group, but prefers the NY inst. due to the quality of the material.

Mike


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 23, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not sure what art you study, but in addition to the KM, I also do Kenpo, BJJ, and Arnis, and I can assure you that there are some pretty brutal techs. in Kenpo as well.  Its pretty much up to the defender to exercise enough control for the situation that he/she is in.  If there was no way of walking away, talking your way out, or doing a controlling move, then a brutal move is the only other option.  Also, I look at it like this.  If someone tries to attack you, your family, break into your house, etc. then IMO, they ddeserve what they get! And if that means a broken nose, then maybe they'll think twice before they attack someone again!



I agree. The difference is that styles like KM are so stripped down that there is not much else to teach. It is easier to teach and learn styles like Kenpo, BJJ, etc. as a defensive, 'softer' styles. There is only one way to teach something like KM, which was developed to be lethal. Soldiers do not want to do minimal damage





> Yeah, that is a good theory to try and live by, but let me ask you this.  How can you be 200% certain? I mean, I've heard about cases where the store owner complies and still gets shot!  Youre pretty much in a no win situation.  And yes, I know that you're car, wallet, money, etc. can be replaced, but again, how can you be so sure that you won't get shot.  I'd rather take the chance and defend myself.
> 
> Mike



Yes, but I still think that teaching gun defense is mostly dangerous.


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> I agree. The difference is that styles like KM are so stripped down that there is not much else to teach. It is easier to teach and learn styles like Kenpo, BJJ, etc. as a defensive, 'softer' styles. There is only one way to teach something like KM, which was developed to be lethal. Soldiers do not want to do minimal damage



True, this art was developed strictly for SD.  Nothing fancy or flashly like you might find in other arts.  It primarily a SD art compared to others that also focus on kata and weapons.  




> Yes, but I still think that teaching gun defense is mostly dangerous.



I agree.  IMO, any time you're dealing with a weapon, the danger factor always goes up.  People train for different reasons, but I've always been a believer that if you're going to take the time to learn an art, especially if you're looking for SD, and not just an activity to do after work, then its very important to make sure that you learn how to defend yourself in all ranges of fighting, and against weapons.  

What weapon defenses do you have in the art that you study?

Mike


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 23, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> True, this art was developed strictly for SD.  Nothing fancy or flashly like you might find in other arts.  It primarily a SD art compared to others that also focus on kata and weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We concentrate on non-firearms.


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> We concentrate on non-firearms.



So you do nothing for a gun, but you have defenses against club, knife, etc???  Why nothing for a gun?

Mike


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 23, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> So you do nothing for a gun, but you have defenses against club, knife, etc???  Why nothing for a gun?
> 
> Mike



Oh, I don't know, let's see. Defense against a gun requires that the gun be close enough for you to grab, that you can move fast enough to grab the arm and move it far enough to clear your body faster than the assaillant can pull the trigger?

I don't like those odds. Take my wallet. Got no cash and the cards are maxed anyways.


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Oh, I don't know, let's see. Defense against a gun requires that the gun be close enough for you to grab, that you can move fast enough to grab the arm and move it far enough to clear your body faster than the assaillant can pull the trigger?
> 
> I don't like those odds. Take my wallet. Got no cash and the cards are maxed anyways.



I gave the following example to MMA Combatives.  I copied it here again.



> I think another thing that they are basing these defenses on, is this. When the attacker is IFO the victim, they are assuming that the attacker is going to be giving the victim an order- "Give me your wallet!" "Put your hands up!" etc. So, going on this movement, they are then basing a defense off of it. The attacker is not going to be thinking, (so we hope) that the victim will do anything but comply with the demands.



This being said, if you stop and think about it, in order to do any disarm, regardless of what the weapon is, you need to be within arms reach of it.  I do see where you're coming from though...why take the chance?   But again I go back to...how can we tell if the attacker is going to shoot or not?  There really is no way to tell.  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Oh, I don't know, let's see. Defense against a gun requires that the gun be close enough for you to grab, that you can move fast enough to grab the arm and move it far enough to clear your body faster than the assaillant can pull the trigger?
> 
> I don't like those odds. Take my wallet. Got no cash and the cards are maxed anyways.



So, basically, you have no gun defense and if confronted by a gun, you're just going to take your chances that by giving the attacker your wallet, keys, etc. that that will be the end of it??

Mike


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 23, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> So, basically, you have no gun defense and if confronted by a gun, you're just going to take your chances that by giving the attacker your wallet, keys, etc. that that will be the end of it??
> 
> Mike



Yes. That and the odds of me being confronted by a gun-totting thug are incredibely small.


----------



## MJS (Apr 24, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Yes. That and the odds of me being confronted by a gun-totting thug are incredibely small.



Ok.  Thank you for the reply.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Apr 26, 2004)

OK, I noticed that this thread slowed down a little, so I thought I'd try to bring it back to life!!!  It seems like the biggest talk that we've had about KM is the weapon disarms.  What changes, if any, would you make to the current way the disarms are done?  

I'm sure with the diverse group of people that we have on here, we should be able to come up with some pretty good ideas!


Mike


----------



## MJS (Apr 27, 2004)

Nobody has any ideas!! :idunno: 

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 27, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> Nobody has any ideas!! :idunno:
> 
> Mike



I don't know if there is a prob with the disarms as much as it is with the 'sloppiness' (because of the emphasis on agressive/tactical sense over technical refinement) that could lead to amplified problems because of the higher risk factor of the gun.  The disarms generally seem to be based on sound principles.

I saw one where the gunman is in the mounted position and the defender in the guard pulls the muzzle down into the ground, purposely trying to disfunction the weapon if it fires by jamming in in the deck.  It also reduces the chance that any twisting motion will point the gun at the defenders head.  

Over all I would say the the immediate, agressive and spirited response - how ever technically 'sloppy' it may be is a good thing for early phases of training.  The early focus of a system as well as individual techniques for self defense should be effectiveness first, then refinement and variation.


----------



## MJS (Apr 27, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I don't know if there is a prob with the disarms as much as it is with the 'sloppiness' (because of the emphasis on agressive/tactical sense over technical refinement) that could lead to amplified problems because of the higher risk factor of the gun.  The disarms generally seem to be based on sound principles.



First off, thanks for the reply!  Not exactly sure what you mean by sloppy?  When I attended the KM seminar in MA., we went over many different techs.  All of the inst. present, made sure that we were really doing the tech. and they made the necessary corrections.



> I saw one where the gunman is in the mounted position and the defender in the guard pulls the muzzle down into the ground, purposely trying to disfunction the weapon if it fires by jamming in in the deck.  It also reduces the chance that any twisting motion will point the gun at the defenders head.



2 different positions.  Was the guy sitting on top of the other guy, or was the bottom guy wrapping his legs around the attacker?  Was this a KM tech?  IMO, I'd rather see a deflection and a counter strike rather than trying to force the gun into the ground. 



> Over all I would say the the immediate, agressive and spirited response - how ever technically 'sloppy' it may be is a good thing for early phases of training.  The early focus of a system as well as individual techniques for self defense should be effectiveness first, then refinement and variation.



I agree.  The techs. are definately aggressive.

Mike


----------



## MMA Combatives (Apr 29, 2004)

Okay, since I stirred up this hornet's nest, I'll expand my critique. First, the 5 DVDs are premium quality. I'm a public relations guru and kudos to the marketing company. From a self defense standpoint, I think KM is a great start to develop basic skills, especially for those who do not have time to devote to more traditional arts. Many of the moves are basic as with many other styles. The DVDs are very choreographed and most often than not, no contact is made, or do they even come close. Many of the self defense techniques result in only one strike or kick, which for anyone who has been in a real tumble or two knows that many combatants simply do not go down unless repeated strikes occur, or strikes to a vulnerable area...bust and break. As for the knife and firearm disarms, it is clearly seen that the blade would cut or slice the defender, or in the case of pistols, the barrel is not brought far enough away from the body. Also, many of the pistols disarms result in grabbing a semi-automatic pistol. For anyone experienced, if the aggressor squeezes the trigger (which is likely to occur in a scrap for the weapon), it will discharge. A semi-auto when fires kicks the upper slide back and one would like be missing a chunk of skin from the fingers and palm. This could cause the defender to pause or experience severe pain, which would give the aggressor more than a second to fire a second, or multiple shots. As for the one of the five DVDs, it focuses on the history and is included in the package price. Although the scenes are choregraphed, the instruction is basically sound. If you're looking for this sort of product...enjoy. For me, I may use a few of the techniques in training, but personally, I would buy one of many different DVDs or Videos...jujitsu, knife fighting, street fighting techniques, arnis, etc. If you're going to cut to the chase, do it wisely.


----------



## MMA Combatives (Apr 29, 2004)

One thing to add. I keep reading about that KM is a military art...yada...yada..yada. No dispute about its orgination, espeically being a retired Army infantry guy who also spent time in the Middle East. I've spent days and weeks in the combatives pit as a Ranger student and a member of the 2d Ranger Battalion where injuries frequently occurred. In the homeland it still may be taught rough and ready to the military, but what is on the DVDs is a far cry from any current true military instruction. If you're studying KM, don't kid yourself into thinking that you're a military-trained hand to hand combat expert. This dilussion will likely get you hurt in the real world.


----------



## MJS (Apr 30, 2004)

MMA Combatives-

Thanks for the reply.  Just curious though if you've seen the FIGHT series that is also on the market.  To me, its very similar to KM, though it may be a slight off shoot.  Have you seen these tapes?  In your opinion, how do those gun/knife disarms differ from the KM disarms??

Mike


----------



## MJS (Apr 30, 2004)

MMA Combatives said:
			
		

> > The DVDs are very choreographed and most often than not, no contact is made, or do they even come close.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 30, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> First off, thanks for the reply!  Not exactly sure what you mean by sloppy?  When I attended the KM seminar in MA., we went over many different techs.  All of the inst. present, made sure that we were really doing the tech. and they made the necessary corrections.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



By "sloppy" I mean that the technical/mechanical proficiency phase of KM training is allotted much less time in overall training than the tactical aspects, so practitioners will look sloppy technically relative to their counterparts in other arts who have trained for the same approximate time.  That said, I would rather, in a real world situation, have to deal with someone who is technically proficient but lacks real agressive intensity through lack of training than the KM 'sloppy' person who will try and take your head off.  Not a criticism like "they suck at technique" but an observation that they don't focus on technique early on as much as making it work.  Technical skill is developed progressively along with the tactical.

I am not totally up on the grappling terms so I may have messed it up but here it goes:

BG on top, sitting on victim.  Victim on his/her back w/two hands on pistol.  Victim controls weapon and drives it muzzle first into the dirt on either side of his/her head to force an off balance of the bad guy and to take the gun off line.  It also promotes a malfunction because of the clogging/jamming of the muzzle w/o angling it toward the victims head by mistake.  Follow up techniques will depend on the situation, but the desired 'technical' outcome is to roll the BG onto his back - to the side that you have already started his/her downward momentum and strip the weapon and either toss it or use it.  In the process there is lots of hitting and stuff from the dirty school mixed in.

I still say that the general tone of KM training, at least in my contact with it, is the early emphasis on assertive and agressive techincal application/tactical response.


----------



## MJS (Apr 30, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> By "sloppy" I mean that the technical/mechanical proficiency phase of KM training is allotted much less time in overall training than the tactical aspects, so practitioners will look sloppy technically relative to their counterparts in other arts who have trained for the same approximate time.  That said, I would rather, in a real world situation, have to deal with someone who is technically proficient but lacks real agressive intensity through lack of training than the KM 'sloppy' person who will try and take your head off.  Not a criticism like "they suck at technique" but an observation that they don't focus on technique early on as much as making it work.  Technical skill is developed progressively along with the tactical.[/quote[
> 
> First off, thank you for replying and for the clarification on this!  I didnt think that you were saying that they sucked, but now that I have another view point, I see what you're saying.  I've actually seen a few documentary clips on KM that were on TV.  I see what you're saying with that 'sloppy' look to them.  Part of this is probably due to the fact that they are not concentrating as much on things such as stances, as you'd see in an art such as Kenpo.   The techs. that were demonstrated were very aggressive.
> 
> ...


----------



## MMA Combatives (Apr 30, 2004)

MJS, the only FIGHT videos I've seen are the two on the web. He does make a valid point about directing the counterattack upward versus to the side so that an innocent bystander isn't shot. I debated several days as to which set of videos to purchase...KM or FIGHT...and opted for the KM. Not sure if it is the best choice, especially since I am familiar with most of the content already. I would like to hear someone's perspective on FIGHT, especially if they are an experienced martial artist (I know my slugline says white belt, but I left that in the dojo about 10 years back).


----------



## MJS (May 1, 2004)

MMA Combatives said:
			
		

> MJS, the only FIGHT videos I've seen are the two on the web. He does make a valid point about directing the counterattack upward versus to the side so that an innocent bystander isn't shot. I debated several days as to which set of videos to purchase...KM or FIGHT...and opted for the KM. Not sure if it is the best choice, especially since I am familiar with most of the content already. I would like to hear someone's perspective on FIGHT, especially if they are an experienced martial artist (I know my slugline says white belt, but I left that in the dojo about 10 years back).




Thanks for the reply.  I've seen that same disarm also done in KM.  I know that the FIGHT tapes are an off shoot of KM, but it'd be interesting to see exactly how different they really are.

Mike


----------



## Vitor (Feb 16, 2017)

Kroy said:


> Is there a Krav Maga section here?



Krav Maga, in my modest opinion, the best self-defense system in the world.

Counterattacking as soon as possible (or attacking preemptively).
Targeting attacks to the body’s most vulnerable points.
Maximum effectiveness and efficiency.
Maintaining awareness of surroundings.

Vitor Ferreira
Former Special Forces
Montreal Krav Maga Chief Instructor
mkmcanada.com


----------

