Why Krav Maga works

[drop bear]

I'm not talking about a set script to go off of, but understanding SD tactics/strategies will vary from MMA tactics/strategies because the goals and dynamics are different. Is there overlap? Absolutely. But there are differences as well.

It depends on what your specific aim is more than whether or not you are doing MMA or self defence.

MMA/self defence. or even Ian Atherbies consensual/non consensual are just bad lines in which to make distinctions.

You are better off making specific distinctions. Like escape to a safe zone. get my handbag back. Drag that guy off my mate. Whatever. And then work a plan towards that.

 

[drop bear]

Well Krav takes feedback from the police and military who use it. Live trials.

The thing is there is testing an art to see if it is effective and testing the self to see if you are effective.
For the art, they don't need to provide you with proof. For the self, sure testing is part of training and sport is a great way to train.

And boxing is only a valid test if the Krav guy can use Krav, which boxing doesn't allow.

BTW boxing sucks because boxers lose in every single boxing match.

Every martial art has police and military that use it. Yes the system does need to be evidence based.

And how many fights did maywhether loose.

 

[DaveB]

No idea how many he lost, but a boxer lost every fight he won.

And if every martial art has a military or police force that use it then every martial art has been tested and presumably been found functional.

 

[DaveB]

It depends on what your specific aim is more than whether or not you are doing MMA or self defence.

MMA/self defence. or even Ian Atherbies consensual/non consensual are just bad lines in which to make distinctions.

You are better off making specific distinctions. Like escape to a safe zone. get my handbag back. Drag that guy off my mate. Whatever. And then work a plan towards that.

That's precisely what SD classes do.

The consensual/non consensual line is just a means of explaining why your training for the safe zone escape is different to training for a karate tournament etc.

 

[Anarax]

There are circumstances where you need to give up a position to fight off an attack. Oma plata. If you roll they will wind up on top. If you don't you can get your arm broken.

Omaplata is a very specific grappling position that one may find themselves in, but that's a much easier situation to gauge the trade offs, broken arm vs worse position.That's why I differentiated voluntarily place your self in bad position vs involuntarily. The one in the omaplata didn't intentionally put themselves there, their opponent did.

There is no point being a freaking awesome jujitsu guy and getting your head smashed in trying to box with a guy.

We're talking about training MMA to use in an SD environment though, thus we a referring to students that should at the very least be able to defend themselves against an average Joe on the street in stand up.

What you would need to do is weigh up the likleyhood of winning stand up vs the likleyhood of going to the ground making your situation worse.

Doing this can be tricky in an SD scenario though. Entering into an MMA bout you will usually know what type of opponent you're facing, this isn't the case in SD. The street combatant could be completely untrained, good, or an amazing striker/grappler. There are tells that show if someone is trained or not in a street fight, but the time window you have to realize that is very small.

Bcause going to the ground in a jump guard is risky. But falling over unconscious is riskier.

I understand what you mean, but again why is the one who trains MMA being out struck in stand up against an average person? I agree a huge advantage of MMA vs SD that more times than not MMA will teach you to fight trained combatants while SD usually doesn't. However, in your scenario he only seems to be good at grappling. If he gets hit a falls over and the guy is standing over him continuing his attack then I can understand pulling guard for that particular situation. If the grappler concludes that the street combatant has better striking would it not be better to use a takedown that would put him in a superior position?

Now all of this isn't to say people should jump guard. MMAguys basically don't do it. It is about how you mentally process your problem solving.

I agree problem solving is a crucial tool for any Martial Artists, regardless if MMA, TMA or SD. However, I have to disagree with you on MMA practitioner's don't jump guard. One of the UFC house fights they pulled guard and in numerous pro fights they pull guard. I'm not saying that these instances represent the entire MMA community, but there are Pro fighters that use it.

It depends on what your specific aim is more than whether or not you are doing MMA or self defence.
MMA/self defence. or even Ian Atherbies consensual/non consensual are just bad lines in which to make distinctions.

You are better off making specific distinctions. Like escape to a safe zone. get my handbag back. Drag that guy off my mate. Whatever. And then work a plan towards that.

I'm referring to the more Sport oriented MMA, opposed to cross-training different styles separately. Training for competition vs non-competition is what it comes down to. There are BJJ schools that have a competition/tournament emphasis and other have a street/SD emphasis. Both are BJJ, but one will be more effective on the street and the other will perform better in competition.


In summary, a lot of MMA is useful in SD scenarios, but there are certain tactics that have developed from the competitive based MMA style that would place the practitioner in a bad position.

 

[drop bear]

That's precisely what SD classes do.

The consensual/non consensual line is just a means of explaining why your training for the safe zone escape is different to training for a karate tournament etc.

Except there is no way to gauge a martial arts progression with out referencing consensual violence. So if you set up a competition in self defence class where one person tries to kidnap you and you try to escape. That is consensual. The feedback you get is consensual. If you can achieve that in that environment it is by engaging pretty much the same micro scenarios that you would face in a MMA match. Just in different order.

 

[drop bear]

In summary, a lot of MMA is useful in SD scenarios, but there are certain tactics that have developed from the competitive based MMA style that would place the practitioner in a bad position.

OK instead of addressing a whole bunch of technical misconceptions there. Let's just work with one at the moment.

People are not potatoes. The whole point of training problem solving is to get good at problem solving.

So that a person at the time can reasonably decide what is good or bad for them to do at the time. So regardless whether there are progressions that will work in a match that won't work in the street. Doesn't mean anyone has to automatically follow that progression.

Now from my experience self defence pretty much has to have two elements and it pretty much has to be in this order.

It has to work.

It has to be applicable.

You can sort of get away with something working but being environmentally silly. You basically can't get away with something that is environmentally suitable but just doesn't work very well.

For krav this is why you almost never their signature move, that block and strike. When krav guys spar. Because nobody can pull it off. (And I have tried)

 

[Anarax]

OK instead of addressing a whole bunch of technical misconceptions there. Let's just work with one at the moment.

Could you clarify on what misconceptions?

So that a person at the time can reasonably decide what is good or bad for them to do at the time. So regardless whether there are progressions that will work in a match that won't work in the street. Doesn't mean anyone has to automatically follow that progression.

Automatically? No. However, using what is better suited for the given situation will place them in a more advantageous position.

You can sort of get away with something working but being environmentally silly. You basically can't get away with something that is environmentally suitable but just doesn't work very well.

It doesn't have to be binary though. If both the silly and non-silly are possible then wouldn't the non-silly be the better choice? If I can submit my opponent without going to the ground in a dark parking lot, would that not be a better choice given the circumstances? Though I understand if my opponent knocks me down or puts me on the ground then I don't have a choice put to work from that position.

For krav this is why you almost never their signature move, that block and strike. When krav guys spar. Because nobody can pull it off. (And I have tried)

Could you clarify? I don't fully understand what you mean.

 

[drop bear]

Could you clarify on what misconceptions?

Fine. Whatever.

Omaplata is a very specific grappling position that one may find themselves in, but that's a much easier situation to gauge the trade offs, broken arm vs worse position.That's I differentiated voluntarily place your self in bad position vs involuntarily. The one in the omaplata didn't intentionally put themselves there, their opponent did

No. Ok part of the escape requires you to be put in a technically worse position in order to keep fighting. You have to make the choice to jump into that position. There is a few escapes that do it. Oma plata is just an easy one to explain. And sometimes it is better to fight on from a reall crap position. So long as you are still fighting.

We're talking about training MMA to use in an SD environment though, thus we a referring to students that should at the very least be able to defend themselves against an average Joe on the street in stand up

Not if we have a completely undetermined strength, weight, numbers or positional advantage. Which in self defence you can't always have. If they are a big roided up guy they might be beating the piss out of you. Even if you have better technical ability. (see that thread on super agressive noobs)

Doing this can be tricky in an SD scenario though. Entering into an MMA bout you will usually know what type of opponent you're facing, this isn't the case in SD. The street combatant could be completely untrained, good, or an amazing striker/grappler. There are tells that show if someone is trained or not in a street fight, but the time window you have to realize that is very small.

See? we have gone from assuming the street fight is average joe to amazing striker grappler. And no. Unless you are some sort of top tier MMA fighter you may not know anything about your oponant. My first MMA I new nothing about mine.

I understand what you mean, but again why is the one who trains MMA being out struck in stand up against an average person? I agree

Because fights are unpredictable. Hell you said that.

I agree a huge advantage of MMA vs SD that more times than not MMA will teach you to fight trained combatants while SD usually doesn't. However, in your scenario he only seems to be good at grappling.

Ok. this is a false distinction. Self defence whether it is MMA or anything else should strive to protect you from the best fighters it can. There is no advantage to be specifically trained to overcome duds. In my scenario it was one reason why I might jump guard in self defence.

If the grappler concludes that the street combatant has better striking would it not be better to

Yes it would be better to throw the guy and wind up in a dominant position. But sometimes you take what you can get. You can't always have these fights go your own way.

I agree problem solving is a crucial tool for any Martial Artists, regardless if MMA, TMA or SD. However, I have to disagree with you on MMA practitioner's don't jump guard. One of the UFC house fights they pulled guard and in numerous pro fights they pull guard. I'm not saying that these instances represent the entire MMA community, but there are Pro fighters that use it.

And that guy got bashed for his jump guard troubles. which is why you mostly don't do it. Unless you have a really good reason.

I'm referring to the more Sport oriented MMA, opposed to cross-training different styles separately. Training for competition vs non-competition is what it comes down to. There are BJJ schools that have a competition/tournament emphasis and other have a street/SD emphasis. Both are BJJ, but one will be more effective on the street and the other will perform better in competition.

Pretty much every MMA gym cross trains in the various styles. Or are at least pretty good at the individual componants. McGregor does MMA striking but can box relatively well.

Robert whitaker was going to represent Australia in wrestling.

Even though jumping guard and sports BJJ is not technically aplicable for MMA if it works there is still a level where you can get away with it. This is where you would see a jump guard in MMA.

So Kron gracie does things that are technically wrong for MMA but because his jits is so much better than his oponant he gets away with it.

This is precisely where works vs aplicable factors in.

 

[drop bear]

Could you clarify? I don't fully understand what you

Nobody ever really pulls that shot off live.

I did hocks system for about 3years and I drilled that move. And because this was before I understood the difference between what works and what would be cool if it works I thought it would be perfect to try on my friend who threw a ton of overhand rights.

Guess what? I spent a year on it and made it work maybe once. Which isn't a very good success rate for self defence.

 

[Anarax]

No. Ok part of the escape requires you to be put in a technically worse position in order to keep fighting. You have to make the choice to jump into that position. There is a few escapes that do it. Oma plata is just an easy one to explain. And sometimes it is better to fight on from a reall crap position. So long as you are still fighting.

I understand, hence is why I said "broken arm vs worse position. Meaning some escapes involve placing yourself in a worse position, but the alternative is your opponent finishing the submission and inflicting a debilitating injury.I was referring to voluntarily placing yourself in a bad position of your own choosing oppose to a specific escape. Though I think I get your point.

Not if we have a completely undetermined strength, weight, numbers or positional advantage. Which in self defence you can't always have. If they are a big roided up guy they might be beating the piss out of you. Even if you have better technical ability. (see that thread on super agressive noobs)

Those are important factors, but if we are talking about a MMAist then they should be able to "defend" themselves from a big roid rager. That doesn't mean they have to KO the rager, but they can at least maintain distance and not get destroyed. Nothing is a guarantee, but the rigors of MMA should prepare them for that.

I did read the noobs thread, I believe most people's advice was for him to train more, which I agree with.

See? we have gone from assuming the street fight is average joe to amazing striker grappler. And no. Unless you are some sort of top tier MMA fighter you may not know anything about your oponant. My first MMA I new nothing about mine.

No, I was saying anyone's skill falls on a spectrum. The point was you have less information in an SD scenario and have a lot of possibilities to prepare for. Concealed weapons, multiple opponents, surprise attacks, etc. There are more factors in an SD scenario that are more difficult to account for. Even in some amateur bouts you can find out who's on the fight card with you and do a simple google search to find out more about your opponent. Even a lot of pros can find out who they're fighting in advance. I understand that it's not always possible to do so though.

Ok. this is a false distinction. Self defence whether it is MMA or anything else should strive to protect you from the best fighters it can. There is no advantage to be specifically trained to overcome duds. In my scenario it was one reason why I might jump guard in self defence.

You misunderstand, a well trained Martial Artist should be able to use their style in an SD scenario. However, I'm referring to SD styles in which they usually only focus on defending themselves against the untrained. In essence, I'm saying SD styles, not SD the concept. If I use MMA in an SD scenario that doesn't make MMA an SD style, though it can be used for SD.

There is an advantage in being well-trained in SD opposed to nothing at all.

Yes it would be better to throw the guy and wind up in a dominant position. But sometimes you take what you can get. You can't always have these fights go your own way.

Yes, when you say "better" that's exactly what I'm referring to, a hierarchy of advantageous positions. Simply knowing the hierarchy isn't enough to maintain a dominant position, but understanding the trade-offs of each position is important.

I did hocks system for about 3years and I drilled that move. And because this was before I understood the difference between what works and what would be cool if it works I thought it would be perfect to try on my friend who threw a ton of overhand rights.

Guess what? I spent a year on it and made it work maybe once. Which isn't a very good success rate for self defence.

Ah, I see what you mean now. Yeah, I could see the difficulty of pulling that move off in a sparring scenario. Judging by how his students were throwing those punches, it doesn't look like it would be the best technique against trained attacks.

Take a look at the video below and the clerk does a very similar move at it was extremely effective against the attacker.

 

[drop bear]

Take a look at the video below and the clerk does a very similar move at it was extremely effective against the attacker.

The two beat block and punch.

There is a reason why that works better than the one beat version. Even though the one beat would be cooler if it did work.

 

[drop bear]

You misunderstand, a well trained Martial Artist should be able to use their style in an SD scenario. However, I'm referring to SD styles in which they usually only focus on defending themselves against the untrained. In essence, I'm saying SD styles, not SD the concept. If I use MMA in an SD scenario that doesn't make MMA an SD style, though it can be used for SD.

There is an advantage in being well-trained in SD opposed to nothing at all.

How does training specifically to fight duds help you in self defence?

Regardless of what you train specifically for. If you fight a dud you will have a better chance of winning. You might even be more likley to encounter a dud as opposed to a trained fighter on the street.

But why would you train for that. What sort of super power do dud fighters have that is not allready incorporated into handling a trained fighter?

 

[drop bear]

No, I was saying anyone's skill falls on a spectrum. The point was you have less information in an SD scenario and have a lot of possibilities to prepare for. Concealed weapons, multiple opponents, surprise attacks, etc. There are more factors in an SD scenario that are more difficult to account for. Even in some amateur bouts you can find out who's on the fight card with you and do a simple google search to find out more about your opponent. Even a lot of pros can find out who they're fighting in advance. I understand that it's not always possible to do so though.

And if you were defending a domestic assault then you would probably know your attacker as well.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Nobody ever really pulls that shot off live.

I did hocks system for about 3years and I drilled that move. And because this was before I understood the difference between what works and what would be cool if it works I thought it would be perfect to try on my friend who threw a ton of overhand rights.

Guess what? I spent a year on it and made it work maybe once. Which isn't a very good success rate for self defence.

How is that - in application - different from slipping inside a punch and counter-punching on the entry? If the opponent doesn't fire the second hand (and they should, for just this reason, but don't always), then they're open for that counter-punch on the entry. I think too much is made of the "block and strike, not block then strike" - the difference between those two is a grey area, rather than the stark distinction that is shown in demos like this.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What sort of super power do dud fighters have that is not allready incorporated into handling a trained fighter?

It's more often about the super-weaknesses they show, which are pretty easy to train for. It's low-hanging fruit.

 

[Anarax]

The two beat block and punch.

There is a reason why that works better than the one beat version. Even though the one beat would be cooler if it did work.

They are quite similar as far as application goes. You create an opening/entry and follow up with a counter-strike. The entry itself is the difficult part, not the counter-attack itself. The one beat usually requires more agility for you have to utilize footwork to jam the opponent and close off the line. Both techniques can be utilized in an SD scenario though.

How does training specifically to fight duds help you in self defence?

Are "duds" untrained people? Just want some clarification.

Regardless of what you train specifically for. If you fight a dud you will have a better chance of winning. You might even be more likley to encounter a dud as opposed to a trained fighter on the street.

You are statically more likely to encounter an untrained person vs trained.

But why would you train for that. What sort of super power do dud fighters have that is not allready incorporated into handling a trained fighter?

The technical aspects have already been covered. However, you should consider not everyone has the same time and physical capacity for long term training.

And if you were defending a domestic assault then you would probably know your attacker as well.

I understand your comment, but I'm not following the context.

 

[drop bear]

How is that - in application - different from slipping inside a punch and counter-punching on the entry? If the opponent doesn't fire the second hand (and they should, for just this reason, but don't always), then they're open for that counter-punch on the entry. I think too much is made of the "block and strike, not block then strike" - the difference between those two is a grey area, rather than the stark distinction that is shown in demos like this.

Don't know why the slip inside is easier. But more people can pull it off.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Don't know why the slip inside is easier. But more people can pull it off.

I agree people pull it off - I actually see it as an example of this kind of thing. What we see in teaching demos is (as always) over-simplified. I trained some of these things for a long time, but didn't start to see the real application until I recognized the slip inside (and some other movements) as applications of this training.

 

[drop bear]

I agree people pull it off - I actually see it as an example of this kind of thing. What we see in teaching demos is (as always) over-simplified. I trained some of these things for a long time, but didn't start to see the real application until I recognized the slip inside (and some other movements) as applications of this training.

I think the inside slip is basically a different thing.