Krav Maga vs. CMA

[Kung Fu Wang]

There are so much similarity between Krav Maga and CMA such as:

- Wheeling step - move out of your opponent's attacking path.
- Face cover, chin push, forehead wiping.
- Downward parry - open your opponent's guard and punch back.
- Deflect and punch.
- Arm guiding.
- Leading arm jam back arm.
- Enter through the side door.
- ...

It's almost the same as the way I teach my CMA class. It further proves that the combat art should not have any style boundary.

Your thought?

 

[MadMartigan]

It further proves that the combat art should not have any style boundary.

Agreed... to a point. I can see some merit in style boundaries in order to delineate what the primary focus of a school is.
I was very lucky to have an instructor who embraced any cross training available.
For instance, my school teaches old style Tae Kwon-Do; but with significant cross training in BJJ and Aikido. In fact, our TKD black belts are required to be able to function on the ground in a BJJ environment. The end result being fairly well rounded martial artists... with TKD focus.
We would also spar with a local Karate Dojo, and had visitoring instructors in Choi Le Fut (sp?), Japanese Jiu Jitsu, Systema, and more.
I think that is the sort of barriers I'd like to see removed from the MAs in general. Go ahead and specialize... but embrace cross training and learning from any source you can find.

 

[Graywalker]

It further proves that the combat art should not have any style boundary.

This what I like about the Toyama line of Karate, he didn't believe in styles and pretty much accepted all forms of MA as beneficial.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

To "choose methods over style" is the most logic way to train MA.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Its based in part at least on things inflcuned by chinese martial arts as far as i recall.

Hell the 360 defence is the parry/blocking found in many TMA systems.

And if you want function, it will all start to look the same, fighting only has a finite nuber of things that will work.

 

[jks9199]

Human bodies only do things efficiently so many ways. So there will always be similar techniques, but styles comprise not only the individual techniques, but how they are taught, the philosophies, strategies, and even how they are combined. A style answers "how do WE protect ourselves, in OUR circumstances, under OUR beliefs?"

 

[jayoliver00]

There are so much similarity between Krav Maga and CMA such as:

- Wheeling step - move out of your opponent's attacking path.
- Face cover, chin push, forehead wiping.
- Downward parry - open your opponent's guard and punch back.
- Deflect and punch.
- Arm guiding.
- Leading arm jam back arm.
- Enter through the side door.
- ...

It's almost the same as the way I teach my CMA class. It further proves that the combat art should not have any style boundary.

Your thought?

Krav Maga is pretty much, MMA Lite w/weapons training. It's pretty good, just a lower level form of training compared to full MMA. Although the camou getup and boots on the mats is unnecessary.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There are so much similarity between Krav Maga and CMA such as:

- Wheeling step - move out of your opponent's attacking path.
- Face cover, chin push, forehead wiping.
- Downward parry - open your opponent's guard and punch back.
- Deflect and punch.
- Arm guiding.
- Leading arm jam back arm.
- Enter through the side door.
- ...

It's almost the same as the way I teach my CMA class. It further proves that the combat art should not have any style boundary.

Your thought?

Some folks like the style boundaries. I’m less in favor of them, but I don’t think there’s any “should” in this.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Some folks like the style boundaries.

What do you think the reason may be?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What do you think the reason may be?

They like focusing on something specific. Or they like the competition it engenders. Or they like being in the art/style that's recoginized as being expert in that area. Or they just like that thing and really enjoy training it.

 

[wab25]

I like to think of styles like text books. There are many text books about computer programming. Some are centered around game development, some around AI programming, some around, windows development... Yes, they will all have a for loop and an if statement... all the authors will have their own preferences for how to construct each... And yes, you can pick a sentence from one book, a sentence from another, a paragraph from a third book... and you can even learn to write your own programs taking this approach. However, by doing it this way... you may miss somethings contained in those books. Those books are written in the way that they are, in the order that they are because the author has something bigger to say, some body of knowledge that is larger than a sentence or paragraph. Some people are fine just grabbing the bits they want. But, if you want everything the book offers, you do need to read the whole thing. Not every programming book is for me. I certainly do pick and choose sentences and paragraphs from tons of books. However, since I like game development, I have read a few game programming books, lid to lid, to build a foundation on which to add these other bits. Can I write code for financial software? Sure. But not nearly as well as someone who read those books.

In my book, styles are there because the founder wanted to communicate more than just a list of techniques. In studying the list of techniques, in the order the founder put them in, you should be able to get what the author was trying to communicate. Once you get the big picture, you can add in whatever you want. You can even learn other big picture ideas. But, I don't think styles were created to say "these are all the techniques we use, and thou shalt not use any others..." They are more about... "Hey guys... this is what I learned and this is how I understand it..."

 

[Flying Crane]

In my book, styles are there because the founder wanted to communicate more than just a list of techniques. In studying the list of techniques, in the order the founder put them in, you should be able to get what the author was trying to communicate. Once you get the big picture, you can add in whatever you want. You can even learn other big picture ideas. But, I don't think styles were created to say "these are all the techniques we use, and thou shalt not use any others..." They are more about... "Hey guys... this is what I learned and this is how I understand it..."

Well said.

Coincidentally I just made a similar posting in a different thread. The upshot is, I do not believe a style is a collection of techniques. Rather, it is a set of foundational principles with a certain approach to training, that can make any technique work well, so long as the technique is compatible with those principles. So potentially any technique can find a home within that style.

A style shouldn’t create limitations. It should be a physical education that teaches you how to move efficiently and powerfully, and opens doors to make anything possible. If a style truly creates limitations, then either it is poorly constructed, or it has become poorly understood.

 

[wab25]

First off... I agree with what you are saying.

it is a set of foundational principles with a certain approach to training, that can make any technique work well, so long as the technique is compatible with those principles

The way I see it... the technique is just the technique. How it is applied and under what context, is what makes it compatible with the principles of an art.

Take a standing, striking art. An armbar from guard can definitely fit. If the striker is taken down, he can achieve guard, bar the arm and use that to regain his feet. That fits into his strategy and principles. Now, if he is immediately pulling the guy down into a guard, to go after that arm bar submission... that would be outside the strategy and principles of his striking art. This is not wrong... but the artist is choosing to use the ideas taught in a different book. (a book that can also have standing strikes as part of its strategy and principles...)

 

[Flying Crane]

First off... I agree with what you are saying.


The way I see it... the technique is just the technique. How it is applied and under what context, is what makes it compatible with the principles of an art.

Take a standing, striking art. An armbar from guard can definitely fit. If the striker is taken down, he can achieve guard, bar the arm and use that to regain his feet. That fits into his strategy and principles. Now, if he is immediately pulling the guy down into a guard, to go after that arm bar submission... that would be outside the strategy and principles of his striking art. This is not wrong... but the artist is choosing to use the ideas taught in a different book. (a book that can also have standing strikes as part of its strategy and principles...)

Interesting take on it, and I think there is room for differing interpretations of what “compatible” means.

I tend to look at it in terms of our power generation methods. We like to root in and use a rotational, full-body connection method. We tend to focus heavily on striking, and this method delivers for some very powerful strikes.

but by way of example and for discussion, I can recognize how the same principles can be applied to a joint lock or throwing or other grappling techniques. Of course one still needs to learn those techniques, but once that is done, if they can be effectively and readily applied with that rooting and rotational foundation, then they can fit within the system. It is no longer a separate grafting from elsewhere.

 

[JowGaWolf]

There are so much similarity between Krav Maga and CMA such as:

- Wheeling step - move out of your opponent's attacking path.
- Face cover, chin push, forehead wiping.
- Downward parry - open your opponent's guard and punch back.
- Deflect and punch.
- Arm guiding.
- Leading arm jam back arm.
- Enter through the side door.
- ...

It's almost the same as the way I teach my CMA class. It further proves that the combat art should not have any style boundary.

Your thought?

I like that there are separate styles. I like that someone can study a style and really go deep into the system. I see Martial arts like the medical field. Where you have doctors who specialize in certain areas. I think this is the only way to get the most out of a system because one person can't dig deep into every system.

I think this also benefits someone when they seek to create a new hybrid system. Having that deeper understanding of the systems that are being trained should make it easier to create a solid hybrid. The only thing I don't like is Style A vs Style A competition. I think that this weakens the style and causes self-imposed limitations and distortions

I like the idea of Style A vs Style B competitions where each systems will eventually be forced to develop techniques within the system or to adopt others in order to stay ahead. I belief this type of competition is healthy and forces styles to grow and improve.

 

[wab25]

Of course one still needs to learn those techniques, but once that is done, if they can be effectively and readily applied with that rooting and rotational foundation, then they can fit within the system. It is no longer a separate grafting from elsewhere.

100% agree here. After studying Shotokan... the power generation and structure from Shotokan, has improved my jujitsu. Of course I had to do the homework to find how to do the jujitsu technique with the power generation and structure from Shotokan. At first, I found this connection in the throws and standing joint locks. Now, I am starting to see the effects in ground work as well. But, this kind of integration only works if you read both books. If you cherry pick things out from a different system, (which I do with other arts...) you will only be getting the thing you picked.

The idea is to pick which books you want to read and study... then read and study those, as the author wrote them. You are looking for big picture, strategy, principles, foundation... Then cherry pick to fill in places you lack, or just want to study. Ideally, you will develop your own personal style, based on the styles you studied and the things you cherry picked.

 

[drop bear]

I like that there are separate styles. I like that someone can study a style and really go deep into the system. I see Martial arts like the medical field. Where you have doctors who specialize in certain areas. I think this is the only way to get the most out of a system because one person can't dig deep into every system.

I think this also benefits someone when they seek to create a new hybrid system. Having that deeper understanding of the systems that are being trained should make it easier to create a solid hybrid. The only thing I don't like is Style A vs Style A competition. I think that this weakens the style and causes self-imposed limitations and distortions

I like the idea of Style A vs Style B competitions where each systems will eventually be forced to develop techniques within the system or to adopt others in order to stay ahead. I belief this type of competition is healthy and forces styles to grow and improve.

That should be happening internally anyway. As people develop their own games.

And should be happening internally instead of externally.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In my book, styles are there because the founder wanted to communicate more than just a list of techniques.

I believe a style founder wanted to communicate a list of "principles". A principle can map into many techniques.

For example, you can use "wheeling step" to move yourself out of the attacking path. You can also use "wheeling step" to lead your opponent into the emptiness.

 

[jayoliver00]

I believe a style founder wanted to communicate a list of "principles". A principle can map into many techniques.

For example, you can use "wheeling step" to move yourself out of the attacking path. You can also use "wheeling step" to lead your opponent into the emptiness.

What Krav Maga looks like when applied in real time.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What Krav Maga looks like when applied in real time.

This, to me, looks like the worst kind of sparring. Padding and taps at the same time. They stopped when any kind of contact was made, and none of the strikes looked capable of delivering power.