What is advanced Krav Maga?

[skribs]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding Krav Maga is that it is a simple martial art with the sole focus of self defense/combat and the strategy of overwhelming your enemy with an unrelenting barrage of attacks until they are no longer a threat. (This is just based on armchair research, and not my own personal experience). When I call "Krav Maga" simple, I'm not saying that in a derogatory way, I'm saying that it is designed to be efficient to learn, so people can apply the principles with less training than other arts.

So my question is this: if Krav Maga is the art that's supposed to be quick and easy to learn to defend yourself with, what is advanced Krav Maga? If a school has belts, what should a brown belt know that a yellow belt doesn't?

 

[Kababayan]

You are pretty darn close with your assessment of Krav. It should be simple and easy to remember. "Advanced Krav" would be more advanced scenario training, such as active shooter, carjacking defense, and third person protection. In addition, a brown belt would have more gun defenses, knife defenses, and ground defenses than a yellow belt. There are other additions, of course, but those are some general differences. Krav schools use either belts or levels so don't be surprised if a Kravist tells you a level rather than a belt color if you ask what rank he or she is.

 

[Runs With Fire]

In a long term commitment to training, there are always harder things to work on. Besides a few trickier more dangerous techniques, advanced students are usually who have advanced (gotten better) with their techniques. If you don't/ can't advanced your skill set and abilities, you're loosing them.

 

[skribs]

In a long term commitment to training, there are always harder things to work on. Besides a few trickier more dangerous techniques, advanced students are usually who have advanced (gotten better) with their techniques. If you don't/ can't advanced your skill set and abilities, you're loosing them.

Yes, I was more asking if there's new stuff to learn, or if it's just improvements on the techniques you learned as white belt.

 

[drop bear]

Yes, I was more asking if there's new stuff to learn, or if it's just improvements on the techniques you learned as white belt.

You could learn advanced concepts on every basic technique you do if you wanted. I am still learning concepts on some of my most basic stuff.

 

[Runs With Fire]

There are generally, increased techniques. You would learn additional techniques as you progress in curriculum. Krav has less individual techniques than several arts I have studied, so you run out of them sooner, but there are some less than basic things in most krav curriculems. The big thing is increasing your speed and stress as you can handle it without getting too sloppy.

 

[TheArtofDave]

You can test for rank belts in Krav. Level 5 is brown and black belt. But you can't get a black belt in Krav until you train under a brown belt.

So the progression and belt testing I think is a year between those belts. So if you wanted Krav rank it would go yellow, orange, green, blue, brown, and then black. Level 4 is a blue belt.

So you could go from belt to belt depending on how much you put into your training

 

[drop bear]

I was looking through some level 5 grading videos.Just to see what the difference was. And I really couldn't see a difference between basic and advanced.

My view would be that the level of resistance should really be the deciding factor. Rather than any new techniques. (Which you sort of dont really need to be honest.)

So just do the scenarios but against better guys who are legitimately trying to beat you. And then do them for longer against fresher better guys.

I think that is really the only way to achieve advancement in the sort of method you guys are using. Which should be geared towards basics drilled and perfomed correctly.

Seriously. The self defence drills just kill me. It was going so well. and then it doesnt.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I was looking through some level 5 grading videos.Just to see what the difference was. And I really couldn't see a difference between basic and advanced.

My view would be that the level of resistance should really be the deciding factor. Rather than any new techniques. (Which you sort of dont really need to be honest.)

So just do the scenarios but against better guys who are legitimately trying to beat you. And then do them for longer against fresher better guys.

I think that is really the only way to achieve advancement in the sort of method you guys are using. Which should be geared towards basics drilled and perfomed correctly.

Seriously. The self defence drills just kill me. It was going so well. and then it doesnt.

I haven't found a way to get to full resistance in scenario training. Full resistance would be using all your knowledge, so it changes the scenario. If I ask you to feed me a lapel-grab-and-shove attack, then ask you to stop me from defending it, the easiest way is to not commit to the shove, and change the direction. Or change the grab to a pull down, or something else. The issue is that the "attacker" knows what the "defender" is expecting, and true full resistance would be changing it immediately into something else. Basically, it usually becomes sparring rather than scenario training. I just skip the scenario part when I'm looking for something like full resistance.

With scenario training, you want the person to commit fully to whatever the scenario is, rather than being focused on stifling defenses to that scenario. So, if the attack is a flurry of round punches, I want them to bring those punches (at whatever is the appropriate force and intent for the scenario), rather than sneaking in a couple of straits or a grab to defeat the scenario.

 

[drop bear]

I haven't found a way to get to full resistance in scenario training. Full resistance would be using all your knowledge, so it changes the scenario. If I ask you to feed me a lapel-grab-and-shove attack, then ask you to stop me from defending it, the easiest way is to not commit to the shove, and change the direction. Or change the grab to a pull down, or something else. The issue is that the "attacker" knows what the "defender" is expecting, and true full resistance would be changing it immediately into something else. Basically, it usually becomes sparring rather than scenario training. I just skip the scenario part when I'm looking for something like full resistance.

With scenario training, you want the person to commit fully to whatever the scenario is, rather than being focused on stifling defenses to that scenario. So, if the attack is a flurry of round punches, I want them to bring those punches (at whatever is the appropriate force and intent for the scenario), rather than sneaking in a couple of straits or a grab to defeat the scenario.

You just set the aims. I dont think it is that hard.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You just set the aims. I dont think it is that hard.

I think we're just using different definitions of full resistance. Yours makes as much sense as mine, and if I use yours, I agree entirely.

 

[jks9199]

You can test for rank belts in Krav. Level 5 is brown and black belt. But you can't get a black belt in Krav until you train under a brown belt.

This is confusing... if you train under a Krav Maga black belt, you have to go find a brown belt to train under so that you can test? I'm not quite certain that you're saying what you're meaning.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is confusing... if you train under a Krav Maga black belt, you have to go find a brown belt to train under so that you can test? I'm not quite certain that you're saying what you're meaning.

I think he meant "train as a brown belt" - at least, that's how I read it.

 

[Runs With Fire]

I was looking through some level 5 grading videos.Just to see what the difference was. And I really couldn't see a difference between basic and advanced.

My view would be that the level of resistance should really be the deciding factor. Rather than any new techniques. (Which you sort of dont really need to be honest.)

So just do the scenarios but against better guys who are legitimately trying to beat you. And then do them for longer against fresher better guys.

I think that is really the only way to achieve advancement in the sort of method you guys are using. Which should be geared towards basics drilled and perfomed correctly.

Seriously. The self defence drills just kill me. It was going so well. and then it doesnt.

that's fairly standard.

 

[skribs]

I haven't found a way to get to full resistance in scenario training. Full resistance would be using all your knowledge, so it changes the scenario. If I ask you to feed me a lapel-grab-and-shove attack, then ask you to stop me from defending it, the easiest way is to not commit to the shove, and change the direction. Or change the grab to a pull down, or something else. The issue is that the "attacker" knows what the "defender" is expecting, and true full resistance would be changing it immediately into something else. Basically, it usually becomes sparring rather than scenario training. I just skip the scenario part when I'm looking for something like full resistance.

With scenario training, you want the person to commit fully to whatever the scenario is, rather than being focused on stifling defenses to that scenario. So, if the attack is a flurry of round punches, I want them to bring those punches (at whatever is the appropriate force and intent for the scenario), rather than sneaking in a couple of straits or a grab to defeat the scenario.

We have this problem in our hapkido classes with a guy who is the tallest. broadest, and highest belt. On the one hand our technique needs a lot of work, but on the other hand he's expecting us to do specific things and is fighting against it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

We have this problem in our hapkido classes with a guy who is the tallest. broadest, and highest belt. On the one hand our technique needs a lot of work, but on the other hand he's expecting us to do specific things and is fighting against it.

This is the hard part with scenario training, when you know what the response is (or even what it is likely to be). Resistance often becomes counters to the expected technique, rather than any realistic input. A common version of this is a strong partner locking their arms rigid during an “attack” - which nullifies both the attack and the response.

 

[skribs]

This is the hard part with scenario training, when you know what the response is (or even what it is likely to be). Resistance often becomes counters to the expected technique, rather than any realistic input. A common version of this is a strong partner locking their arms rigid during an “attack” - which nullifies both the attack and the response.

What do you mean by "nullifies both the attack and the response"?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What do you mean by "nullifies both the attack and the response"?

Assume you are giving a grab - let's say you're grabbing the front of my shirt/jacket with your hands. If you do that an lock your arms up (often happens at 90 degrees) by tightening both biceps and triceps, it will stop most of the easy non-striking responses because it creates a rigid frame (often someone doing this will also stiffen their torso) that is hard to move. The attack also becomes useless, because you can't use that arm. It's a non-attack. I see students do this, and I just stop them and ask them what they are trying to do. They often say something like "Grab your jacket." "Why? Do you just really like this jacket??"

The attack should have an intent. What was the point of the grab. Was it going to turn into a shove, a punch, a pull in and throw down, a spit in the face, a big sloppy kiss? Just locking out the arms and holding them still doesn't have any intent to it.

 

[drop bear]

Assume you are giving a grab - let's say you're grabbing the front of my shirt/jacket with your hands. If you do that an lock your arms up (often happens at 90 degrees) by tightening both biceps and triceps, it will stop most of the easy non-striking responses because it creates a rigid frame (often someone doing this will also stiffen their torso) that is hard to move. The attack also becomes useless, because you can't use that arm. It's a non-attack. I see students do this, and I just stop them and ask them what they are trying to do. They often say something like "Grab your jacket." "Why? Do you just really like this jacket??"

The attack should have an intent. What was the point of the grab. Was it going to turn into a shove, a punch, a pull in and throw down, a spit in the face, a big sloppy kiss? Just locking out the arms and holding them still doesn't have any intent to it.

Yeah. The attacker needs to have a role. So if I grab you I should be trying to advance position. For us it is either the back or a take down. The other guy might try to get free and escape.

This also means the scenario ends at some point. Which is handy after a while. As just being in a stalemate sucks.

This also, also means that if it take you half down and you scramble back up. We are still going. Or if I take you down but wind up underneath then I have lost that position. If I can scramble back up. We are still going.

And that creates all of these useful dynamics that win fights. Because a takedown doesn't work if they jump straight back up. Or if it gets reversed mid way.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah. The attacker needs to have a role. So if I grab you I should be trying to advance position. For us it is either the back or a take down. The other guy might try to get free and escape.

This also means the scenario ends at some point. Which is handy after a while. As just being in a stalemate sucks.

This also, also means that if it take you half down and you scramble back up. We are still going. Or if I take you down but wind up underneath then I have lost that position. If I can scramble back up. We are still going.

And that creates all of these useful dynamics that win fights. Because a takedown doesn't work if they jump straight back up. Or if it gets reversed mid way.

That “role” is important. Without it, a lot of scenario training turns into “punch and hold”. That’s fine for a first drill on a technique or application, but loses the dynamics. One of the best changes I made was defining what the attacker is allowed to do if the defender fails (or fails to respond). Do they repeat the same action, try again on the other side, or what?