Krav Maga training effectiveness

[Paul_D]

By the way, I don't have immediate access to a punching bag or gloves (the place I do Krav Maga uses handheld mats mostly) so I'd prefer to not have to spend loads of cash on training equipment.

These are cheap, and take up little space as you just hang them from the cieling or on the wall. Obvioulsy this is a UK site, but you'll be able to find something similar whereever you are I am sure.

TurnerMAX Punch Bag Wing Chun Wall Bag Black

 

[Tez3]

If someone were attacking the police officer then yes, I imagine the officer is allowed to defend themselves. Kicking someone in the groin to neutralize them is a hell of a lot less grounds for lawsuit than shooting them in the face wouldn't you agree? Also KM requires less training to be effective; I can't imagine the police force would want to spend years training their officers kung-fu or any other form of martial art (although I'm sure a kung-fu master could beat someone up as thoroughly as a KM practitioner), as with KM the moves are rather basic and usually go: "Block the attack, counter ASAP, go for the weak points and stay aware of your surroundings." It's a lot easier to remember a simple set of instructions such as that rather than attempting to apply a complex MA that (typically) wouldn't condone the most effective takedowns due to dirty play.

Firstly kicking someone in the groin may well not neutralise them, it's not a fight ender at all. Police forces don't learn any specific martial arts as forces, they may as individuals. Police officers have different priorities, they often want to take someone down to the ground to restrain them, something not recommended for the public. Police officers are variously equipped, many with firearms, most with batons of some sort, usually extendable ( a British police officer fought off one of the terrorists recently with his) sprays of some sort and tasers. Police officers are very well trained in doing what they do, disarming someone with a gun to the head is harder than you imagine, perhaps you have watched too many films and television to make an accurate assessment of how real life police officers work.
The rule in the UK is that one has to use reasonable force, this goes for the police too, one can use pre-emptive moves, one can use a weapon and you can use deadly force if it's reasonable as we've seen last week when three terrorists were shot on sight.

 

[Touch Of Death]

The reason I like it as a form of self defense is that it teaches you how to go for the weak points of the body, which is something that isn't taught in any other martial art. Obviously if I were a skilled kickboxer or MMA'er I could apply those skills and throw in some eye gouges and the like, but in KM lessons you actually go through the motions of attacking those areas and so it helps develop that response to be instinctual. Also KM is taught in most military/police forces around the world, so I don't see how you can argue that it isn't (at the very least) ONE of the best forms of self defense.

Yeah we are taught to aim for the shins, and the top of the forehead. I always wondered if there was a better way.

 

[Tez3]

KM isn't taught in many military forces, (in fact very few probably actually only the IDF, funnily enough) either as much as certain instructors/organisations would like you to believe it is.
As for it being the only martial art that teaches you to go for weak part of the body, you are kidding right? You may want to look up the history of KM, it didn't magically appear and was instantly different from all other styles, it came from other styles. Like all styles it depends who teaches you and how you train as to whether it's any good or not. Don't get caught up in the hype.

 

[Tez3]

If it wasn't a good form of self-defense, they wouldn't teach it to those who are frequently in dangerous hand-to-hand combat situations.

Who is 'they'? And who are these people who are so frequently in dangerous hand to hand combat?

 

[hoshin1600]

If it wasn't a good form of self-defense, they wouldn't teach it to those who are frequently in dangerous hand-to-hand combat situations.

please remember many of us here have been training in martial arts a really really long time. try to accept that many of the things that you think are true, are not. i dont know where your from but keep in mind that KM is kinda new and there are a great number of instructors out there that have no business teaching. the school down the road from me advertises KM and the school is promoted as such but it was only a few years ago they were teaching kempo karate there. as i did some research on them i found the head instructor took an 8 hr course, possibly on line and then changed his school to a KM school in order to make more money. so keep in mind that many schools teach a watered down version of KM and you would find it very difficult to know the difference since you are still new at it.
im not saying your school is not legit, but you should have the opportunity to work power and more at your school.
dont be afraid to look around for something you really like and meets all your needs at this time. you can always come back to KM later.

 

[oftheherd1]

Pardon me if I don't know every single martial art, but I have KM lessons are nearby, and lets face it, I'm not gonna learn to gouge eyes and knee crotches in kickboxing. You're right though of course, I'm sure many self defense systems teach dirty play.

You keep mentioning dirty play, can you define what dirty play is in martial arts? While you are at it, define what your goal is in learning martial arts?

The reason I ask is that although I am happy not to have to use martial arts to resolve a situation, if a person attacks me despite my attempts not to engage in fighting, I don't have a lot of sympathy for what happens to them. From the little I have seen of Krav Maga, the practitioners don't have a lot of sympathy either. Am I wrong?

Some of your other comments, I will just put them down to inexperience and lack of knowledge. But ...

Most all military and police taking Krav Maga? That has already been commented on, but I will clarify that military combat and police work are each difference from what most people engage in, and so what the responses should be. The last thing that most military units want is for their soldiers to have to engage in hand to hand combat. So knowing a few specialized things for when that happens will probably suffice. Some specialized units may need training for that, but it will likely be a conglomeration of effective techniques. Police have the added constraint of trying not to maim or kill while having to fight with someone. Therefor they may not be able to use some tactics the military may use.

Going for weak points? What martial art would prefer to go after strong points? That doesn't make any sense.

Not being able to use full strength? Yeah, if you constantly attack weak points of the body while connecting with great strength, you will eventually run out of practice partners. I would suggest what used to be taught in the TKD I studied years ago. Learn control. Learn to put full strength at a point you want. That takes time by the way. You want to be able to put full strength about 3/8 inch from what you want to strike or kick. You have to start out and work you way in. Consider that if you have that kind of control, in a real situation, you can put your point of contact 1/2 to 1 inch inside the attackers body. If you can't do that, give up martial arts.

My personal recommendation at your point in martial arts would be to take one martial art, and get really good at it. After that, you can look around again and see if there is another art you would like to pursue for whatever reason. By the way, getting good doesn't really occur until around whatever equivalent your art designates as around 2nd or 3rd dan. You don't have to learn 10 martial arts to 10th dan before you become proficient in defending yourself.

 

[hoshin1600]

getting good doesn't really occur until around whatever equivalent your art designates as around 2nd or 3rd dan.

i would put aside ranking and say that proficiency usually comes at about 10 years, regardless what endeavor you are talking about. martial arts, music, dance, carpentry, metal working they all take about the ten year mark. it has something to do with the way the brain works.

 

[Headhunter]

If it wasn't a good form of self-defense, they wouldn't teach it to those who are frequently in dangerous hand-to-hand combat situations.

Martial arts is very unimportant in the army and police. It's taught but it's very basic stuff. That's because they have more important things to be training. And also Krav Maga isn't taught to every army mainly just the Israile army and from what I know it's a different version to what you'll be learning. (Could be wrong there) but anyway don't always get in the assumption an eye gouge or groin kick will end a fight straight away. Can it? Yes of course it can but it could also do not much damage there's no guarantees in fighting. I've never been in a street fight but if I ever was I know my strategy would be to strike hard and fast and hit anything I can and not give them a chance to hit me

 

[Nadav917]

KM isn't taught in many military forces, (in fact very few probably actually only the IDF, funnily enough) either as much as certain instructors/organisations would like you to believe it is.
As for it being the only martial art that teaches you to go for weak part of the body, you are kidding right? You may want to look up the history of KM, it didn't magically appear and was instantly different from all other styles, it came from other styles. Like all styles it depends who teaches you and how you train as to whether it's any good or not. Don't get caught up in the hype.

You're right, I was wrong to say it was the only martial art to do so. Keep in mind that I don't have access to lessons in every martial art, so my options are rather limited in terms of my choices. What I meant by that though was that as far as I know about martial arts (which admittedly isn't as much as most people on this forum) is that KM encourages striking the vulnerable parts of your opponent. Of course you can use Muay Thai strikes to hit someone in the groin, or gouge someone's eye out while using MMA techniques, but from what I understand, while training those martial art forms you are not told to specifically target those areas. There are rules in most martial arts, as they are usually also competition sports, while KM was developed solely for self defense. You can tell me I'm wrong; I don't really care, but personally, as I'm trying to learn self defense, I would rather go with the system that is built entirely around that.

 

[Nadav917]

You keep mentioning dirty play, can you define what dirty play is in martial arts? While you are at it, define what your goal is in learning martial arts?

The reason I ask is that although I am happy not to have to use martial arts to resolve a situation, if a person attacks me despite my attempts not to engage in fighting, I don't have a lot of sympathy for what happens to them. From the little I have seen of Krav Maga, the practitioners don't have a lot of sympathy either. Am I wrong?

Some of your other comments, I will just put them down to inexperience and lack of knowledge. But ...

Most all military and police taking Krav Maga? That has already been commented on, but I will clarify that military combat and police work are each difference from what most people engage in, and so what the responses should be. The last thing that most military units want is for their soldiers to have to engage in hand to hand combat. So knowing a few specialized things for when that happens will probably suffice. Some specialized units may need training for that, but it will likely be a conglomeration of effective techniques. Police have the added constraint of trying not to maim or kill while having to fight with someone. Therefor they may not be able to use some tactics the military may use.

Going for weak points? What martial art would prefer to go after strong points? That doesn't make any sense.

Not being able to use full strength? Yeah, if you constantly attack weak points of the body while connecting with great strength, you will eventually run out of practice partners. I would suggest what used to be taught in the TKD I studied years ago. Learn control. Learn to put full strength at a point you want. That takes time by the way. You want to be able to put full strength about 3/8 inch from what you want to strike or kick. You have to start out and work you way in. Consider that if you have that kind of control, in a real situation, you can put your point of contact 1/2 to 1 inch inside the attackers body. If you can't do that, give up martial arts.

My personal recommendation at your point in martial arts would be to take one martial art, and get really good at it. After that, you can look around again and see if there is another art you would like to pursue for whatever reason. By the way, getting good doesn't really occur until around whatever equivalent your art designates as around 2nd or 3rd dan. You don't have to learn 10 martial arts to 10th dan before you become proficient in defending yourself.

I've already said this a few times on this thread, but what I meant is that other martial arts aren't as focused on attacking vulnerable body parts as KM. By vulnerable I mean areas that could cause permanent damage if attacked: the eyes, throat, small joints like fingers, etc. Learning how to throw a punch while training MMA is learning how to swing a closed fist at someone, which is considered legal in the competition sport, whereas in KM you learn to shove your open hand in the opponents face and dig in with your fingers. There's a lot of things you learn in KM that you don't learn in other martial arts, hence the 'dirty play' aspect of it.

As for what you said about the last thing military units wanting is for their soldiers to be in hand-to-hand combat, I don't see how that would mean they don't get into those situations anyway. Just because they don't want to be in those situations doesn't mean they won't. Also I never meant that KM was the only martial art taught in many military and police forces. Of course they use various techniques and training. However, through one quick google search I found that at the very least the Israeli, British and American armies all train KM at least to a certain extent, so again I bring up the point that if it weren't effective, the military wouldn't decide to use it.

As you said about it taking a long time to gain the control to use full strength and not hit your partner, I obviously have not trained for long enough to do that. I don't want to train KM for 10 years just so that I can use force without hurting my partner, I want to improve my power alongside my KM training. Since I can't hit my partner directly in KM, I want to do kickboxing on the side to allow me to do some actual sparring. That was the entire point of this thread, I honestly don't know how it escalated into a full-out argument over the legitimacy of KM.

 

[Nadav917]

Firstly kicking someone in the groin may well not neutralise them, it's not a fight ender at all. Police forces don't learn any specific martial arts as forces, they may as individuals. Police officers have different priorities, they often want to take someone down to the ground to restrain them, something not recommended for the public. Police officers are variously equipped, many with firearms, most with batons of some sort, usually extendable ( a British police officer fought off one of the terrorists recently with his) sprays of some sort and tasers. Police officers are very well trained in doing what they do, disarming someone with a gun to the head is harder than you imagine, perhaps you have watched too many films and television to make an accurate assessment of how real life police officers work.
The rule in the UK is that one has to use reasonable force, this goes for the police too, one can use pre-emptive moves, one can use a weapon and you can use deadly force if it's reasonable as we've seen last week when three terrorists were shot on sight.

Obviously I'm not a police officer, so I wouldn't know, but people keep saying on here that cops have to use reasonable force. Does that mean that police officers are only trained to take down someone safely and 'legally'? Because that doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't they be trained to handle something worse than that and then dial it down when actually working in the field? Are you telling me that if a police officer has a gun pointed at them, that they must still consider the ethical implications of kicking the guy in the groin or gouging out his eyes? Of course they have limitations and such and if there were any other way to take the guy down I'm positive they would take that course of action, what I'm trying to say is that KM would help in a more serious situation where they can't manage with just pepper spray or their taser doesn't work for some reason. I also don't appreciate your condescension where you assume I'm brainwashed by Hollywood movies to think that a gun-to-the-head situation can be solved with simply twisting it out of the guy's hand, but surely it's better to train KM techniques in disarming someone than just sit back and say 'Oh well it's not as easy to disarm someone as they show in the movies' and just take the bullet, right? Also, you sort of proved yourself wrong in your last point. If it's sometimes considered 'reasonable' to use lethal force, such as in the case of a terrorist attack, then what happened to your argument that KM is not suitable for police work?

 

[jobo]

I've already said this a few times on this thread, but what I meant is that other martial arts aren't as focused on attacking vulnerable body parts as KM. By vulnerable I mean areas that could cause permanent damage if attacked: the eyes, throat, small joints like fingers, etc. Learning how to throw a punch while training MMA is learning how to swing a closed fist at someone, which is considered legal in the competition sport, whereas in KM you learn to shove your open hand in the opponents face and dig in with your fingers. There's a lot of things you learn in KM that you don't learn in other martial arts, hence the 'dirty play' aspect of it.

As for what you said about the last thing military units wanting is for their soldiers to be in hand-to-hand combat, I don't see how that would mean they don't get into those situations anyway. Just because they don't want to be in those situations doesn't mean they won't. Also I never meant that KM was the only martial art taught in many military and police forces. Of course they use various techniques and training. However, through one quick google search I found that at the very least the Israeli, British and American armies all train KM at least to a certain extent, so again I bring up the point that if it weren't effective, the military wouldn't decide to use it.

As you said about it taking a long time to gain the control to use full strength and not hit your partner, I obviously have not trained for long enough to do that. I don't want to train KM for 10 years just so that I can use force without hurting my partner, I want to improve my power alongside my KM training. Since I can't hit my partner directly in KM, I want to do kickboxing on the side to allow me to do some actual sparring. That was the entire point of this thread, I honestly don't know how it escalated into a full-out argument over the legitimacy of KM.

I think the point being made to you, is KM is not alone in hitting vulnerable body parts, nor is it more effective at self defence than many other arts, and whilst the ten year quoted is a bit long, it does take more than a few lessons with slow complient partner who you are not allowed to hit, to be able to actually use it. It does take a fair time and a good deal of application and fitness to make it effective, just as with any other art

 

[jobo]

Obviously I'm not a police officer, so I wouldn't know, but people keep saying on here that cops have to use reasonable force. Does that mean that police officers are only trained to take down someone safely and 'legally'? Because that doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't they be trained to handle something worse than that and then dial it down when actually working in the field? Are you telling me that if a police officer has a gun pointed at them, that they must still consider the ethical implications of kicking the guy in the groin or gouging out his eyes? Of course they have limitations and such and if there were any other way to take the guy down I'm positive they would take that course of action, what I'm trying to say is that KM would help in a more serious situation where they can't manage with just pepper spray or their taser doesn't work for some reason. I also don't appreciate your condescension where you assume I'm brainwashed by Hollywood movies to think that a gun-to-the-head situation can be solved with simply twisting it out of the guy's hand, but surely it's better to train KM techniques in disarming someone than just sit back and say 'Oh well it's not as easy to disarm someone as they show in the movies' and just take the bullet, right? Also, you sort of proved yourself wrong in your last point. If it's sometimes considered 'reasonable' to use lethal force, such as in the case of a terrorist attack, then what happened to your argument that KM is not suitable for police work?

generaly speaking cops can only use the force that is reasonable in th circumstances , also generaly that would rule out blinding the suspect and renderings them incapable of having children

 

[Headhunter]

Obviously I'm not a police officer, so I wouldn't know, but people keep saying on here that cops have to use reasonable force. Does that mean that police officers are only trained to take down someone safely and 'legally'? Because that doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't they be trained to handle something worse than that and then dial it down when actually working in the field? Are you telling me that if a police officer has a gun pointed at them, that they must still consider the ethical implications of kicking the guy in the groin or gouging out his eyes? Of course they have limitations and such and if there were any other way to take the guy down I'm positive they would take that course of action, what I'm trying to say is that KM would help in a more serious situation where they can't manage with just pepper spray or their taser doesn't work for some reason. I also don't appreciate your condescension where you assume I'm brainwashed by Hollywood movies to think that a gun-to-the-head situation can be solved with simply twisting it out of the guy's hand, but surely it's better to train KM techniques in disarming someone than just sit back and say 'Oh well it's not as easy to disarm someone as they show in the movies' and just take the bullet, right? Also, you sort of proved yourself wrong in your last point. If it's sometimes considered 'reasonable' to use lethal force, such as in the case of a terrorist attack, then what happened to your argument that KM is not suitable for police work?

If someone is holding a gun at your head and wants to kill you your dead. No amount of Krav Maga or anything will save you. They won't walk over with heavy footsteps and say a big monologue before killing you. They'll walk up behind and shoot you before you even know they're there.

Also yes if someone does have a gun at your head and doesn't shoot you straight away then more likely they don't want to kill you just rob you. So if someone puts a gun at my head and asks for my wallet you know what I'm gonna do? I'm giving that guy my wallet and going home alive.

Thing is there's no argument here the police do not train Krav Maga simple as that

 

[Headhunter]

I've already said this a few times on this thread, but what I meant is that other martial arts aren't as focused on attacking vulnerable body parts as KM. By vulnerable I mean areas that could cause permanent damage if attacked: the eyes, throat, small joints like fingers, etc. Learning how to throw a punch while training MMA is learning how to swing a closed fist at someone, which is considered legal in the competition sport, whereas in KM you learn to shove your open hand in the opponents face and dig in with your fingers. There's a lot of things you learn in KM that you don't learn in other martial arts, hence the 'dirty play' aspect of it.

As for what you said about the last thing military units wanting is for their soldiers to be in hand-to-hand combat, I don't see how that would mean they don't get into those situations anyway. Just because they don't want to be in those situations doesn't mean they won't. Also I never meant that KM was the only martial art taught in many military and police forces. Of course they use various techniques and training. However, through one quick google search I found that at the very least the Israeli, British and American armies all train KM at least to a certain extent, so again I bring up the point that if it weren't effective, the military wouldn't decide to use it.

As you said about it taking a long time to gain the control to use full strength and not hit your partner, I obviously have not trained for long enough to do that. I don't want to train KM for 10 years just so that I can use force without hurting my partner, I want to improve my power alongside my KM training. Since I can't hit my partner directly in KM, I want to do kickboxing on the side to allow me to do some actual sparring. That was the entire point of this thread, I honestly don't know how it escalated into a full-out argument over the legitimacy of KM.

Thing is you already seem to know what you want and are getting upset with the answers people are giving you

 

[Nadav917]

If someone is holding a gun at your head and wants to kill you your dead. No amount of Krav Maga or anything will save you. They won't walk over with heavy footsteps and say a big monologue before killing you. They'll walk up behind and shoot you before you even know they're there.

Also yes if someone does have a gun at your head and doesn't shoot you straight away then more likely they don't want to kill you just rob you. So if someone puts a gun at my head and asks for my wallet you know what I'm gonna do? I'm giving that guy my wallet and going home alive.

Thing is there's no argument here the police do not train Krav Maga simple as that

By that logic no one should ever train disarming someone ever, because it simply doesn't work. I'm not saying it works 100% of the time, but if even one person has ever prevented a bullet to the face using KM or a similar technique, it's worth learning.

 

[Paul_D]

Obviously I'm not a police officer, so I wouldn't know, but people keep saying on here that cops have to use reasonable force. Does that mean that police officers are only trained to take down someone safely and 'legally'? Because that doesn't make any sense.

People keep saying it because it's true.
They do have to use reasonable force, they do have to take people down legally, and it makes perfect sense.

 

[Nadav917]

Thing is you already seem to know what you want and are getting upset with the answers people are giving you

I already said I knew what I wanted a while ago, now I'm just hearing a lot about how I'm not experienced enough to know anything. I never pretended to be an expert on MA, and I'm not hearing any actual replies to my posts as to what alternative MA's there are, rather just a lot of 'KM isn't as effective as you think, I know more because I've done MA for longer'. Apologies if I sound salty now, but this thread turned from asking for advice into a 'why KM isn't actually that great' thread.

 

[jobo]

By that logic no one should ever train disarming someone ever, because it simply doesn't work. I'm not saying it works 100% of the time, but if even one person has ever prevented a bullet to the face using KM or a similar technique, it's worth learning.

I'm not sure it would ever work outside of a km demonstration film or a movie. You would need to be lightning fast and the gunman as slow as a slug