what makes "krav" krav?

[drop bear]

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

Why?

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

Executive Function Skills and Disorders

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Why?

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

Executive Function Skills and Disorders

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

That's not contrary to my statement.

 

[drop bear]

That's not contrary to my statement.

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

Yes. And your point?

 

[drop bear]

Yes. And your point?

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

In this concept is there any mention of lizard brain.

Or is it all geared towards executive function?

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

In this concept is there any mention of lizard brain.

Or is it all geared towards executive function?

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

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

 

[AngryHobbit]

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

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

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

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

 

[Buka]

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

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

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

Welcome to MartialTalk, AngryHobbit.

 

[AngryHobbit]

Welcome to MartialTalk, AngryHobbit.

Thank you ever so muchy.

 

[drop bear]

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

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

So that you dont have to rely on your feelings.

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

You can train that discipline through adversity.

Then you can have a usable tool.

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

So that you dont have to rely on your feelings.

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

You can train that discipline through adversity.

Then you can have a usable tool.

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

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

 

[kravmaga1]

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

 

[Gyuki]

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

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

The main principles of KM are also special:

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

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

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

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