Krav Maga

[James Conlan]

Hi,

Does anyone here take Krav Maga?
Briefly, I am just wondering of people's opinions of it, in terms of its self defense effectiveness.

Thanks,
James Conlan

[Blackwood]

I've done a bit of research on it recently. From those that I have talked to, it is very effective for self-defense. It specifically avoids 'finesse' and takes into account human reactions to stress, both in the part of the attacker and the victim. It avoids calling itself an 'art' and in Isreal has moved away from the use of belts for ranking purposes.

I'm seriously consider checking out the local school later this year, after my shodan test.

[gozanryu]

James, Krav Maga schools often have weekend or one day seminars. If you can get yourself into one of those, it will give you a good idea of what it's all about. Personally, I think they have some very good basic principles and techniques. Easy to bring to bear quickly. In other words, gross movements that are easy(er) to teach than more complex techniques, that are more "natural" to utililize.

[Shison]

Ouch.

I still vividly remember my first exposure to this, back in the early nintees in Georgia. We had some Israelies there at SOA, and one of them was staying in the same apartment off-base where I did in Columbus. We spent the day at Benning with them learning our approach to infantry tenchniques, and we spent the night training in MA in our back yard.

My eyes were never blacker, more swollen, or hurt more than that night when he showed me some blind-fighting, pardon the pun (He ended up chipping my skull just above my right eye).

Nasty stuff *IF* you are on the recieving end...

I wish I didn't loose his addy, we could sit back over a tall cold one and reminice...

[chrismoses]

Krav Maga has proven itself VERY effective in beating the tar out of Palistinian children. Very practical.

[Shison]

Krav Maga has proven itself VERY effective in beating the tar out of Palistinian children. Very practical.

Either way this is derogatory, elaboration please :)

[chrismoses]

Krav Maga was developed to be a quick and dirty method for hand to hand combat for a group that had been victomized and terrorized all over the world. Now Israel is the victomizer using similar tactics of repression and murder as was used against them against another minority culture. In the US all we hear about is poor Israel, and I'm sick of it. In my mind Krav Maga typifies the current political situation of Israel, if someone throws a rock at you, launch a helicopter rocket attack at their apartment building. If someone throws a punch at you, break their legs, break their jaw, break their arm and then bash their skull in after they fall. Remember, it's not terrorism if you're wearing a uniform. Sorry for making light of a terrible situation, but the whole thing is so absurd that I can only laugh.

[Shison]

Ok, just wanted to clarify. I'm choosing not to get involved with the whole palastinian/Israel thingy, for it's not my cup of tea at the moment, nor is it detrimental to discuss here on E-budo.

Back to the original inquiry on this thread:

Does anyone here take Krav Maga?
Briefly, I am just wondering of people's opinions of it, in terms of its self defense effectiveness.

I do not take it, but I've been exposed to it (Usually on the recieving end). Looked good to me, FWIW.

[Rogier]

Originally posted by chrismoses
bla bla bla

dude get back on the topic.... if you wanna ****** about the political issues in Israel make a new thread..

to get back on the topic:

As far as I've seen it is very effective and as was said above all stuff to make it look nice have been taken out..

[Paul Kerr]

Krav Maga: I took a few courses in it some years ago just out of curiosity. My impression was that it's brutal, to the point, founded on very sound principles and b.s. free. I liked it a lot.

[chrismoses]

Sorry, I thought this was the Members Lounge where, "Off topic posts [are] welcome."

But since everyone's undies seem to be in a bunch, I'll draw out my comments into something without the (admittedly poor) humor.

What I've seen of Krav Maga is very effective, simple and easy to put to use in real situations. This comes with the disclaimer that while it is good at what it does, it was designed for the military and therefore some of the reactions that it trains are not entirely desired from a civilian standpoint. What I mean by that is that if your knee jerk reaction to a punch is to snap someone's knee backwards and beat them across the back with a stick you will have a difficult time presenting yourself in court as the victim of an assault. Modern military arts operate under different assumptions than those geared for civilian personal defense, namely freedom from litigation. Last year in Seattle, and ex Navy seal killed two guys in a bar fight. He killed them with textbook precision, according to reports he stabbed each man once and they dropped. His mistake was that he was not in Iraq or elsewhere under the protection of a military institution and as a result is now contemplating his error in judgment in a federally funded hotel, instead of getting pats on the back for perfect technique from his superiors.

In a recent post Ellis Amdur brought up (or responded to, I don't remember off hand which) Donn Draeger's distinction of Martial arts (military) vs. Civilian fighting arts. Due to the peculiarities of feudal Japanese culture, some Japanese budo that were designed as Martial arts transition very well into civilian fighting arts. An excellent example is Jujutsu and it's ability to respond and restrain an attacker sometimes without injury. Anyone who has trained in jujutsu sees the obvious options for lethal responses, but they can be tempered relatively easily. The study of Japanese sword can be seen as a martial art because it's deployment (particularly in older ryu-ha) was within the context of a lethal military struggle. It is impossible to take the lethal nature out of the art. No one (in their right mind) studys Kenjutsu today in order to learn how to defend themselves on the street. It simply doesn't work. You can't walk around with a shinken waiting for someone to mug you and cut their head off. While Krav Maga doesn't advocate running around with a three foot razor blade, it does hold on to its military roots in its principles of force response. The issue I have is teaching a military art to civilians who may wind up "victims" of liability for defending themselves with their training. Krav Maga presents itself as an excellent method for self defense that is quick and easy to learn. That seems to be true, but teaching it openly to anyone who walks through the door borders on negligence.

[kruger]

Hi Chris,

On the subject of the ex-Navy SEAL, what were the events leading up to and directly after the fight? These events, AFAIK, are more important in determining legal liability than the level of force used. The local IDPA club has two members who have had to use lethal force to defend their lives. Neither one spent any time in jail. They did, however, make every effort to disengage from or de-escalate the situation before hand and called for the police and paramedics directly afterwards.

In my opinion, teaching "civilians" lethal force options is okay, as long as the associated legal and ethical issues are also covered. It is even better to provide them with a range of force options.

Mark Kruger

[chrismoses]

I did not witness the incident in question, but my understanding is that it went along the all too typical lines of verbal banter, strong words, shoving, "let's go outside", a couple shoulder pushes and then seal escallated directly to lethal knife work. It did not sound like he did much to diffuse the situation or avoid the confrontation.

I'm certainly not opposed to learning or teaching lethal techniques, but agree with you that teaching the legal and ethical issues associated with those techniques is absolutely necessary. Having the ability to respond with apropriate force should be intrinsic to whatever system is studied.

Perhaps someone with more experience than myself with KM could comment on how/ if this is dealt with. It seems that other military based arts such as Systema have made the transition to teaching to the general public fairly smoothly.

[gozanryu]

I will say this. The basic tenant of Krav Maga is NOT to escalate verbal sparring immediately to lethal knife work. Much like all MA, it is designed t overwhelm the attacker with suprise and violence of action. It is not pretty, it is violent and gross in its applications. The idea being to get the situation over with instantly. On another note, it is interesting that it seems a concensus that "teaching the legal and ethical issues associated with those techniques is absolutely necessary" hmm. . hopefully our students (or any MA instructors students) would "get that" from the over all philosophy MA offers, through the involvement prior to getting handed "those" techniques. Rarely do I teach white belts "pithing":cool:

[Shison]

Well, when I was training with the Israelies at Benning, I can assuredly state that KM is effective, but I can also assuredly state that I am still alive (Mostly), so there must be some kind of transition from the lethal techniques to the "civilian" techniques. I was with your basic run-of-the-mill soldiers, not instructors (That I'm aware of), and I thought they did a good job with that process.
There was no mistaking the lethal aspect that KM opened up during it's techniques, but they held back (thankfully) the lethal portion, which was probably a good idea since we were right next to V Drive. The other aspect that I liked was the maximum entrophy they portrayed with it.

Brutal

[Furtry]

Having studied both, KM in Israel, I'll drop my 2bits FWIW.
KM as taught to the military is ballistic and a young mans thing. Prolonged full time training will be detrimental to your health. Hence they use allot of padding and control training for civilians. There are also variants, which focus on different aspects such as working from a disadvantage to escape and evade.
Now for Systema, I've been at it for about 6 years now. Systema is a cultural art that emphasizes morals heavily. It has taught me that the response is directly proportionate to the attack. So the attacker is the maker of his own demise.

Chrismoses, I take allot of offence to you ignorance. I, an Israeli and a former soldier, can only say that you should get educated on a subject before opening your mouth. It is obvious you know nothing of what you’re talking about, politically or of KM.

[nicojo]

Most Israeli and American Jews I know are deeply ambivalent about the political situation. The few Palestinians I have known are as well.

But I know nothing of Krav Maga besides what I have seen in a book or on the web. Same with Systema. It is good to hear your thoughts on both, would you recommend any reading sources on them, either online or in text for those of us who do not have access to a training area? I do know that there is are a few Systema practitioners around here on e-budo and that there are some articles at Aikido online and Aikido journal (I think that's where I saw them).

[Furtry]

nicojo, The stuff on the net is heavily influenced by the 'marketing machine', in both cases of Systema and KM. I recommend hands on and from different teachers. This is very important in Systema not so much in KM.

Major differences in the two styles are the mind set. This is why the two styles look so very different. In Systema my mindset is survival with no aggression. KM is aggression as in overwhelm them with superior firepower, as all military philosophy is.

KM will also get you in shape very quickly or you will get sick of being a punching bag and quit. Systema takes on more of a long term balanced approach.

If I sound biased, I am. :D

[Mr. Buster]

Boxing is my 'thing' at this time. But I've done some KM as well and found it very quick and simple to learn. To me it is a very effective SD system. And because it's kept relatively simple its easily retained. The boxing helped the KM and in some ways vice versa [though not for ring work, they frown of elbows and knee spikes in boxing .:D ]

[robkidd]

hi there
i am new to ebudo
i have trained in krav for about a year now, i find it excellent.
the techniques are simple and are very interchangeable.
they are very easy and quick to learn and i feel you get some benefit from only a few lessons.

much emphasis is put on escape being your first reaction and only fight if you have to, also ground fighting is discouraged and all the techniques taught in ground fighting all lead to a swift return to the feet, this is because nowadays very few one on one fights take place, and while you are trying to get fancy arm bars and wrist locks on your opponents his friends will probably be using your head as a soccer ball.

i have also found that krav is very good for female defence and there are many techniques that do not require strength.

all in all i think that this is a very good system and instead of having 2000 techniques for 200 situations it has more like 200 for 2000 situations.

[EricH]

KM in the U.S. is a both a politically fractious franchise and frequently violated trademark.

From what I have heard the instruction quality, and even the material that is taught, can vary dramatically from school to school running the gamut from Tae Bo-type exercise classes requiring Krav Maga TM clothing to serious self-defense training.

Go with your eyes open and don't make any expensive up front commitments until you see what you want.

[Akita atemybaby]

I am now studying a combat oriented art and we frequently discuss the point made by Chris:

it was designed for the military and therefore some of the reactions that it trains are not entirely desired from a civilian standpoint. What I mean by that is that if your knee jerk reaction to a punch is to snap someone's knee backwards and beat them across the back with a stick you will have a difficult time presenting yourself in court as the victim of an assault. Modern military arts operate under different assumptions than those geared for civilian personal defense, namely freedom from litigation

My teacher's take on this is that unless you have the confidence to end the threat now, (i.e. kill) you would be hard pressed to have the composure to non-violently respond to a violent situation. In other words, you train to kill so that you don't have to.

Mike

[Trevor Johnson]

My teacher's take on this is that unless you have the confidence to end the threat now, (i.e. kill) you would be hard pressed to have the composure to non-violently respond to a violent situation. In other words, you train to kill so that you don't have to.

That's actually where my teacher says he loses most people. Once people realize that they can actually kill people, they often have problems and quit. Once they get past that, they're in it for the long haul.
The question I've got, though, is how do you train the lethal stuff vs the nonlethal? Is it that you train everything up to the finishing moves and such, and then train the lethal finish, or what?

[Akita atemybaby]

I'm not clear on what you're asking. Are you asking if we train white belts lethal techniques or if we break down individual techniques to practice lethal vs. non-lethal aspects of the art?
Is it that you train everything up to the finishing moves and such, and then train the lethal finish, or what?

[Trevor Johnson]

Both, actually.
Do you wait to teach the more lethal twists until you know if the person whom you teach can handle them? Part of this is safety, yes, but my own personal opinion is that if you teach a nutcase to be a better fighter, you're at least partially responsible for what they do with it. Of course, if you teach someone junk, you're also responsible if they try to use it and get smashed. So there's definitely an ethical component as well, and we've gotten rid of people we didn't think had it.

One of the things I've learned is that a lot of the things my group teaches are potentially quite lethal, and the changes or additions that make them so are only taught after they think you have the control to handle them.
Practicing lethal vs non-lethal aspects is rather useful, though I find that most anything non-lethal can be turned lethal with a few tweaks. That is, if the technique's a good one in the first place, and not a flashy piece of junk.

[Akita atemybaby]

Trevor,
The basic philosophy at the school I study at is that you need to know how to kill in order to make less lethal things like submissions work. It has to do with your confidence level. That being said, white belts don't walk in off the street and learn to kill someone using "nifty trick #1" or whatever. There are too many fundamentals that have to be taught first. Footwork is probably all they see for a good long while and that process tends to weed out the nutcases.

[Scott]

Michael,

I can’t agree with your school’s philosophy. It is much easier to learn to kill than to learn to immobilize that is true, but it is not necessary to learn to kill to gain confidence to defend oneself. A sense of power may be gained by learning to kill; a sense of false confidence, or even arrogance, as illustrated by the Navy SEAL mentioned above, but once you have been trounced by some guy you have been attempting to kill, your confidence will be shattered. The result will be that you still know HOW to kill, but NOW you have no confidence.

Confidence comes from experiencing the effectiveness of an applied technique over time and under various circumstances, including circumstances where the applied technique required modification due to changing circumstances. This confidence only comes from experience and it does not require the knowledge of death dealing. It is absolutely unnecessary to know how to kill in order to learn to defend yourself with confidence and effectiveness.

I was once acquainted with a formally trained boxer (a prison inmate) who was very adept at knockout blows to the temple; most, if not all boxers are not specifically trained to kill. This man was in his 50’s and routinely knocked out younger men who were gang trained killers with experience in killing if not formally trained in the MA. His confidence was in his ability, learned from years of experience, to deal a knockout blow without necessitating a death blow. Assuredly a temple blow may kill, but this is not the purpose of boxing and one cannot make the claim he gained his confidence from knowing the blow COULD kill. He gained his confidence from training and the experience of having knocked out many opponents in varying circumstances. His method was merely to bide his time defending himself until the opponent allowed an opening for his knockout strike.

Further, the Tai Sabaki elements of Aikido, which originated from sword and spear schools, are a very effective means of evading, and coupled with very basic parrying and blocking techniques may be used to protect oneself from nearly all hand-to-hand encounters. Using atemi is not even necessary. I refrain from saying ALL hand-to-hand encounters only because it is difficult to make an absolute statement when so many variables are possible in an encounter, however I would say it approaches the absolute.

[Akita atemybaby]

Scott,
you make a lot of good points and I agree with a lot of what you have said. Aikido, the way it's taught today, is the perfect antithesis to the point I was making. I agree that confidence comes from experience but how often is the typical person attacked (outside the dojo)?
I, personally, am not being jumped daily by gang bangers. I do know, however, that if I were attacked by a gang trained killer, I would want to make sure he would not be getting back up to continue threatening me and/or my family. An immobilization would be nice but I would want to know that at any time I could "end the threat" as my teacher puts it.
The old grandmasters of Aikido knew atemi very well and had no problem showing their ukeis how quickly they could end a situation. I love Aikido but I don't think it was ever intended to be the kinder-gentler art that it is often marketed as now. In the dojo, your uke rolls away harmlessly when thrown. On the street, your attacker can't roll and would likely snap his neck in a faceplant. Doesn't that make Aikido deadly as well?

[Trevor Johnson]

Have you ever read Ellis Amdur's book "Duelling with O-Sensei?"
One of his conclusions is that you have to know how to strike to make aikido work. Otherwise people will just tense against your techniques and they'll come to nothing. The reason an aikido technique works is that the alternative, resisting, is more painful and more harmful than going along with the technique. Therefore, you have to know how to make it more painful and more harmful. If you don't, you can never make the technique work. So, you should be able to, at any point during the technique, strike to injure and control the target.

One little thing about Ueshiba, btw. He was not a harmless guy. Aikido was developed by a man who trained Japanese SF during WWII, and he knew perfectly well how to kill someone. That's before aikido. To make it work, you need to know the same, otherwise it's mostly for character development. And while that's a perfectly valid goal in and of itself, it's not useful on the street.