Why does Krav Maga distinguish between military and civilian?

[GreenieMeanie]

I think I’ve looked though all the estalished combatives systems at this point.

Kelly McCann/Jim Groover (formerly Kembativz)

Lee Morrison Urban Combatives

MDS

Defendo/Defendu

Krav Maga


Defendo and the first two are fundamentally the same thing, in that McCann and Morrison’s work is a modified version of Defendo. Depending on which martial arts historians you talk to, some may argue that Imi Litchtenfeld was exposed to Defendo before making Krav Maga. But most of these systems have nearly identical moves, so thats a purely academic discussion.

However, one thing that separates Krav Maga from all the other systems is its approach to weapons. It considers learning about their use defensively to be an advanced skill with certification under “military Krav Maga,” while the other systems teach that in parallel. Infact, the philosophies of Defendo, UC, and Kembativz all strongly recommend practitioners to carry a weapon, because they consider relying on purely unarmed techniques to be dangerous for life-threatening situations.

Krav Maga considers the use of knives, batons, pistols, and rifles to all fall under “military certification,” including striking, weapons retention, and room clearing. You are barred from Krav Maga organization sponsored events, until you have learned the “civilian“ empty handed curriculum. UC and Kembativz simply consider these particular skillsets, without requiring previous empty-hand training. Literally the entire itinerary on a military Krav Maga instructor course, can be learned during a few weekend courses in the US. There is nothing secret about it, and one has little to do with the other.

Granted, only military and police have a regular need for rifle retention or grappling with a baton, while wearing a plate carrier (unless of course, you have somehow managed to find yourself in a John Wick situation, wrestling your rifle away from gangsters at 3am)—but that is still not a sufficient explanation for the distinction and compartmentalization.

Is there a historical bureaucratic explanation? Like how the police and military of European countries and Israel carry guns without a bullet in the chamber to this day, despite drop-safes making the practice obsolete?

 

[Holmejr]

Money? Mystique?
Actually, I don’t know. In the FMA, weapons are for beginners…

 

[frank raud]

UC and Kembativz are the same as Defendo? What version of Defendo are you referring to?
So Krav has tiered levels of instruction where you have to take certain courses before you can take others? Kinda like UC has grades 1-6? You can't start at grade 6, need to work your way through

 

[GreenieMeanie]

UC and Kembativz are the same as Defendo? What version of Defendo are you referring to?
So Krav has tiered levels of instruction where you have to take certain courses before you can take others? Kinda like UC has grades 1-6? You can't start at grade 6, need to work your way through

Morrison and Groovers work is heavily influenced by Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate. If you know their stuff, what they teach clicks.

They all have tiers, but only Krav Maga makes a point of not training weaponry without “military certification.” UC and Kembativz teach it in parallel. Kembativz infact doesn’t have tiered levels of instruction. They don’t hide any of their curriculum. You rank up simply with mastery of it as a whole,

 

[drop bear]

I think I’ve looked though all the estalished combatives systems at this point.

Kelly McCann/Jim Groover (formerly Kembativz)

Lee Morrison Urban Combatives

MDS

Defendo/Defendu

Krav Maga


Defendo and the first two are fundamentally the same thing, in that McCann and Morrison’s work is a modified version of Defendo. Depending on which martial arts historians you talk to, some may argue that Imi Litchtenfeld was exposed to Defendo before making Krav Maga. But most of these systems have nearly identical moves, so thats a purely academic discussion.

However, one thing that separates Krav Maga from all the other systems is its approach to weapons. It considers learning about their use defensively to be an advanced skill with certification under “military Krav Maga,” while the other systems teach that in parallel. Infact, the philosophies of Defendo, UC, and Kembativz all strongly recommend practitioners to carry a weapon, because they consider relying on purely unarmed techniques to be dangerous for life-threatening situations.

Krav Maga considers the use of knives, batons, pistols, and rifles to all fall under “military certification,” including striking, weapons retention, and room clearing. You are barred from Krav Maga organization sponsored events, until you have learned the “civilian“ empty handed curriculum. UC and Kembativz simply consider these particular skillsets, without requiring previous empty-hand training. Literally the entire itinerary on a military Krav Maga instructor course, can be learned during a few weekend courses in the US. There is nothing secret about it, and one has little to do with the other.

Granted, only military and police have a regular need for rifle retention or grappling with a baton, while wearing a plate carrier (unless of course, you have somehow managed to find yourself in a John Wick situation, wrestling your rifle away from gangsters at 3am)—but that is still not a sufficient explanation for the distinction and compartmentalization.

Is there a historical bureaucratic explanation? Like how the police and military of European countries and Israel carry guns without a bullet in the chamber to this day, despite drop-safes making the practice obsolete?

What is also interesting is there is a massive market for military training to civilians.

So it is not like krav is going where the demand is.

 

[frank raud]

Morrison and Groovers work is heavily influenced by Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate. If you know their stuff, what they teach clicks.

They all have tiers, but only Krav Maga makes a point of not training weaponry without “military certification.” UC and Kembativz teach it in parallel. Kembativz infact doesn’t have tiered levels of instruction. They don’t hide any of their curriculum. You rank up simply with mastery of it as a whole,

Fairbairn, Sykes and Applegate have nothing to do with Defendo. As you specifically mention both Defendu and Defendo, you should know the difference.
If Krav chooses to designate weaponry as Military only, and that you must go through all tiers( oops, certifications) for civilian Krav before they teach weapons, it's their curriculum. Last Krav seminar I attended ( in November) focused on gun disarms, no prior experience necessary . At a previous Krav seminar ( different instructor, different organization), the instructor taught gun disarms to a group of mainly housewives and yoga students ( only two experienced martial artists attended, we were put in a corner so we wouldn't distract the newbies). When I asked him why teach disarms to people who can't punch or kick, he said it's a signature move of Krav, and people expect it. Different Krav organizations, different expectations.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Marketing. That's really all it comes down to.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

What is also interesting is there is a massive market for military training to civilians.

So it is not like krav is going where the demand is.

I think it’s a top-down thing. They answer to a global organization. “Military training” is more an American trend.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Fairbairn, Sykes and Applegate have nothing to do with Defendo. As you specifically mention both Defendu and Defendo, you should know the difference.
If Krav chooses to designate weaponry as Military only, and that you must go through all tiers( oops, certifications) for civilian Krav before they teach weapons, it's their curriculum. Last Krav seminar I attended ( in November) focused on gun disarms, no prior experience necessary . At a previous Krav seminar ( different instructor, different organization), the instructor taught gun disarms to a group of mainly housewives and yoga students ( only two experienced martial artists attended, we were put in a corner so we wouldn't distract the newbies). When I asked him why teach disarms to people who can't punch or kick, he said it's a signature move of Krav, and people expect it. Different Krav organizations, different expectations.

I

Fairbairn, Sykes and Applegate have nothing to do with Defendo. As you specifically mention both Defendu and Defendo, you should know the difference.
If Krav chooses to designate weaponry as Military only, and that you must go through all tiers( oops, certifications) for civilian Krav before they teach weapons, it's their curriculum. Last Krav seminar I attended ( in November) focused on gun disarms, no prior experience necessary . At a previous Krav seminar ( different instructor, different organization), the instructor taught gun disarms to a group of mainly housewives and yoga students ( only two experienced martial artists attended, we were put in a corner so we wouldn't distract the newbies). When I asked him why teach disarms to people who can't punch or kick, he said it's a signature move of Krav, and people expect it. Different Krav organizations, different expectations.

Well, you once referred to them a such, and you seem to be the most qualified to discuss them—so I won’t contest that. All I know is that those three laid the foundation of a unified concept of combat, between martial arts, gunfighting, and team tactics (not that that concerns this forum).



When I refer to weapons, I’m not talking about disarms. I’m talking about training the fine points of defensive shooting, stabbing, and clubbing.



Kembativz and UC are not shy about covering that, and they consider it essential to learn at any level. It’s only Krav Maga organizations that are timid about it. People who achieve the first rank of Kembativz are exposed to it, as supposed to Krav Maga “civilian” graduates, who must achieve military certification, be police/military, or pay extra for a seminar to train that at all.

 

[frank raud]

Hello

I was wondering what is the style of judo called with banned techniques like all leg locks and etc? Does any one teach that in the USA? I am referring to old school judo that is not guided buy any rules not completion judo. Is there no-gi version of it?

Thank you
Kingofjong

I

Well, you once referred to them a such, and you seem to be the most qualified to discuss them—so I won’t contest that. All I know is that those three laid the foundation of a unified concept of combat, between martial arts, gunfighting, and team tactics (not that that concerns this forum).

You're going to have to point out where I said that. I can't find it and am surprised I would say that, knowing it's wrong.