Extreme Combat Ireland Krav Maga: Carlow .... One Day Seminar

darced

This post has been deleted.

Naos

gonko wrote: »

Why do you benchmark a style against MMA. Why does everything have to stack up against this sport? If you think the fighters in my vid was sloppy....look closer. One guy was sloppy. The other exploited every opportunity he got. I dont judge any particular style on its effectiveness against MMA. To me MMA is a sport. A little kickboxing with some jiu jitsu thrown in. Nothing so special in fairness. To be blunt....anyone trained properly in any good traditional martial art would make piss of an MMA fighter. And thats the facts. MMA fighters are trained to compete over a few rounds. Traditional martial artists train to literally maime someone in seconds . You cannot compare a sport with a martial art. They are 2 different things and will achieve different outcomes.

The reason I would benchmark against MMA is because it is the benchmark, as pointed out earlier.

You are correct, MMA fighters will train to compete over a few rounds, IF it goes the distance. They want to be able to compete at that level. That doesn't mean they are going to prance around for three rounds and hope the judges will decide in their favour.

Have you ever watched an MMA fight? Look at a local fighter like Conor McGregor, he's trained to last rounds but he stops fights fast.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for KM however I really hope for your sake you're not being lulled into a false sense of security in it and what it will 'make you capable of on the street'.

gonko

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your about 20 years behind,this argument has already been won.

The two guys in the video are typical of guys who dont spar enough,they wouldnt last two minutes with a fairly low level mma fighter in the street or not,very sloppy.

The benchmark is mma for a reason.[/Quote]
The benchmark is MMA? LOL. Come on man are you for real. Im not going to argue with you guys on this. If you think a ring sport is more effective than a traditional martial art that had been developed over decades then i really dont know what to say. Im gob smacked quite frankly. And i watch mma on a regular basis. Maybe I am lucky and fortunate to have a good instructor in my particular style. I cannot comment on KM or any other styles taught in irelands. And by the way the video i linked was not Silat.....merely the entries and decoy positions were taken from it. Most of what i do in silat is not legal in MMA. There are bits such as muay thai striking and such that would be but again silat is not and never will be a sport unless it is severely diluted. MMA is very good. I watch it regularly and is very entertaining. It is the benchmark of combat sports. It is not a benchmark of martial arts....because it isn't one.

pablohoney87

Early ufc had no rules literally except eye gougin and 'oil checks'
A silat guy entered and was spanked by a ninjitsu fighter. A FOOKIN NINJITSU FIGHTER.
The reason why a 'traditionally' trained fighter will never ever match up to a well trained mma fighter is because you don't train to fight (or even defend yourselves well). You train set defined patterns against compliant opponents. All because the techniques are too 'dangerous' to practice with resistance.
People can say they train in martial arts all they want. But can they fight (street, garage, cage, covered in jelly)?
NO!
(Well maybe covered in jelly. You can make a dam good living at it too )

oh and spare me the bull about what's illegal in mma
groin shots aside anyone whose done bjj long enough has had some spaz try to stick their thumb in his wind pipe or eye. Do we tell him to stop and bitch about him? No we armbar the knob and it'l teach him to keep his hands to himself.

Dyr

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Early ufc had no rules literally except eye gougin and 'oil checks'
A silat guy entered and was spanked by a ninjitsu fighter. A FOOKIN NINJITSU FIGHTER.
The reason why a 'traditionally' trained fighter will never ever match up to a well trained mma fighter is because you don't train to fight (or even defend yourselves well). You train set defined patterns against compliant opponents. All because the techniques are too 'dangerous' to practice with resistance.
People can say they train in martial arts all they want. But can they fight (street, garage, cage, covered in jelly)?
NO!
(Well maybe covered in jelly. You can make a dam good living at it too )

personally, I'm training to attack straw men. There's a lot of them bastards out there

And Remco Pardoel was a ninjutsu fighter? He kept that fairly quiet :pac:

pablohoney87

Was it remco beat him? I thought it was the lad who got elbowed into oblivion by pat smith.
Right or wrong my you get my point

Dyr

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Was it remco beat him? I thought it was the lad who got elbowed into oblivion by pat smith.
Right or wrong my you get my point

Don't think so, he was an older geezer who threw a few a nice flicky strikes and actually got an entry to remcos back and then like every non grappler got taken down and battered while he tried to figure out how to fight off his back


this is what silat competition looks like, TKD with some nice sweeps, scissors and occasional break dancing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR7V54EBkyk

pablohoney87

Tbh i have interest in one of these silly 'debates' right now.
was just reading the thread and some of gonkos arguments were just painful to read. And this is coming from a man who bit his tongue 3 weeks ago at a seminar where a trad guy tried to claim jamming your tongue to your pallet stops you passing out from a rear naked choke

Peetrik

gonko wrote: »

Why do you benchmark a style against MMA. Why does everything have to stack up against this sport?

To sidestep the style vs style debate, I think it would be fair to say that the reason that MMA is used as a benchmark is because of the consistency in training methodoligy used across the bord in most MMA clubs. Those being...

1) Focus on sport specific fitness
2) Training technique against unwilling participants
3) Regular hard sparring to get used to being hit

They are practised in other TMAs too but not all and not with the consistency as MMA

gonko wrote: »

anyone trained properly in any good traditional martial art would make piss of an MMA fighter.

This is just plain wrong.

gonko

Bambi wrote: »

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Was it remco beat him? I thought it was the lad who got elbowed into oblivion by pat smith.
Right or wrong my you get my point

Don't think so, he was an older geezer who threw a few a nice flicky strikes and actually got an entry to remcos back and then like every non grappler got taken down and battered while he tried to figure out how to fight off his back


this is what silat competition looks like, TKD with some nice sweeps, scissors and occasional break dancing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR7V54EBkyk

Silat and competition? What you are seeing in tge video is a MUCH diluted version of what silat is about. I am not dissing mma. i seem to have upset people on here. Jesus. What is MMA. Mixed Martial Arts. So it is parts of traditional arts combined in order to suit a competition environment. SThere are parts of MT, silat, TKD already present in mma rings. But its only a combination to suit competition. Wheras a traditional style (if taught properly) does get pressure tested against an unwilling opponent. Techniques are done on willing opponents at first to perfect them. Then they are improved and speed added until they are at an acceptable success level against an unwilling opponent. Maybe other martial arts have willing opponents all the time. Mine most certainly does not. However we do refrain from full head blows and stuff like that. Obviously we are not looking to be at a point where we are counting how many hits yiu can take. Where with mma that is a factor with stamina etc. They are trained differently and have different outcomes. I personally wouldnt have the fitness to go a number of rounds in a cage lol. Thats not what i want in a martial art. This is not a style vs style debate. Every style has its good and bad points. But MMA guys cant see this and go on the defensive right away. It does you no justice lads. Respect and an open mind go a long way. I have already aknowledged in this thread i like mma. I have watched it. I have trained with former mma guys also. So relax and open yiur minds.

brabo

You cant practice fighting without full head blows,thats the problem.
I dont think anyone is getting defensive more that there laughing at your unwillingness to accept your training is only really usefull in your head.

Stillweak

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonko
anyone trained properly in any good traditional martial art would make piss of an MMA fighter.


Hi Gonko
I dont know much about martial arts so Im taking an open mind with this debate.
I would like to ask a question regaurding your statement.

Would you and how many of your silat training partners be able to win a street fight against the best irish mma fighters?

OLDMAN1

is silat the new km?

antybots

I thought this traditional style vs MMA debate was over years ago.

I don't train MMA but have I do have a background in traditional Martial arts.
Gonko, in my opinion, the reason people here are attacking your views and using MMA as the benchmark is for the following reasons:

Years ago everyone believed the theories behind traditional martial arts. Stuff like 'we don't try out some techniques on each other because they are too deadly' or 'done properly, you can stop a fight in one move'. We had loads of that type of theory in Karate and TKD and, to be honest, it sounds a lot like the stuff you are saying. Then, you could go and watch a karate or kung fu or whatever tournament and it looked pretty good and some guys looked tough and got bloody noses etc. but again, there was a strict ruleset to keep the 'deadly' techniques out and to let the guy up when he went down. So far so good. Lets all do martial arts and learn to kick ass.

Then came the 'cage fighting' shows where everything was kicked up a notch. People could use the chokes and pressure point strikes if they wanted, you could fight guys from other styles and the ruleset was extremely relaxed. What happened next turned the martial arts world upside down. Firstly, it turned out the so called 'deadly' strikes didn't kill or even stop a determined opponent (something bouncers have known for decades) and secondly, no matter how good a striker you are, it turns out you are in trouble if you meet a good grappler and you have no ground game.

The general martial arts student had no idea of these realities until the explosion of shows like UFC. THAT's why MMA is now the benchmark. Because they pressure tested all the traditional arts against each other during the early shows and exposed a lot of the theories as being based on incorrect assumptions.

I think you do MMA a disservice by saying it's kickboxing with a bit of BJJ. MMA has evolved to use techniques that you can use safely and effectively in a fight, whether those techniques are Silkat, tkd, BJJ etc. If they work, they will be drilled. If they are too high risk or ineffective, they are not drilled.

Like I say, I don't do MMA, but I am a realist and you can't dismiss it as just an in-vogue sport. An MMA fighter is realistically as well prepared for a brawl on the street as you can be in terms of striking power, effective techniques, fitness, stamina and determination and I think would give a nasty shock to a traditional martial artist (me included) in a fight.

Maybe you should have a look at the early UFC's to see what were thought to invincible techniques being defeated, and then maybe go and spend a couple of weeks in an MMA gym and see what they do. I think it would of great benefit to you and it might give you a bit more respect for what they do.

My 2 cents

Peetrik

Well though out and well reasoned post antybots.

pablohoney87

Peetrik wrote: »

Well though out and well reasoned post antybots.

Agreed. Post reported. Clearly has no place on an internet forum

First Aid Ireland

I think at the end of the day, the best thing you can do is take up a martial art because you enjoy it, rather than because you think it would make you bad ass.

I said before here, I did KM before. I don't think it would have made me a great fighter, but i really enjoyed it.

But don't claim it's effective unless you can show it is. MMA is clearly effective at what it is. Self defence styles can't prove that so convincingly. in my humbler.

gonko

i have to laugh at the MMA guys jumping on here on the defensive AGAIN. :rolleyes:
I honestly cannot add anything more to this discussion. My points have been ignored. One guy even asked is Silat the new KM? Is this the level of martial arts knowledge that is on this forum now?

I do not do martial arts to be "bad ass" and have nothing to prove. In fact I am very humble about it and never speak about it unless I am among fellow practitioners etc. I cant say the same for some posts on here jumping with their oversized egos defending the benchmark sport that is also seemingly the benchmark for martial arts world wide *giggles to self.
MMA is very good, and I am repeating myself here in the hope of getting through the thick egos of the MMA guys on here. YES I do like MMA, the fighters are in great condition. But you are trained within rules. So guess what, on the street you will act within them. Subconciously at least. I also agree some traditional arts are taught like patterns and such. I went to look at a TKD class years back and the full hour was spent watching 20 people punching and kicking the air. Total waste IMO (based on my perception). Then again some TKD has made its way into MMA. So is kicking the air in patterns now the benchmark?
Seriously guys, you all need to have a look outside and smell the coffee. MMA is the benchmark for combat SPORTS. And yes it will help in a street situation if needed. As far as Silat goes, it covers long, medium and close range attackers. Ground attacks, multiple attacker scenario and weapons training. ALL of it gets pressure tested against a live unwilling opponent. So if MMA is pressure tested and Silat is pressure tested, and MMA is a sport and Silat is a traditional art, how is MMA the benchmark of Martial Arts?

cowzerp

Unwilling opponent! so you attack random people-thats called assault!!

MMA teaches you to deal in all areas of fighting, Stand up, Clinch and Ground fighting, it is very easy to add in the illegal techniques and in a real life situation if needed then they would be used, odds on needing them are slim to none though!

Also you can't train Eye pokes live so you have as much training as an MMA fighter in eye poking, i doubt you deliberately attack the groin in class with resistance either, if you do :rolleyes:

As a complete Martial art MMA is it, and best if in 1 on 1 situation, personally I feel Boxing is the best for the street as it's better at dealing with Multiple opponents and keeping your feet firmly planted on the ground, plus you can throw a lot of punches in a very short time frame.

When i was only Boxing trained i was jumped by a lad who trained Kung fu! he done a flying kick at me and we fell with him on top of me in mount, instnctively I stuck my finger behind his eye and squeezed his eyeball, was i trained to do that-No, Did i even know you could, No.

Point been any eejit can poke eyes and you don't need training to do it.

Dyr

gonko wrote: »

I do not do martial arts to be "bad ass" and have nothing to prove. In fact I am very humble about it and never speak about it unless I am among fellow practitioners etc.

Ah come on, dont be so humble tell us about your silat experience, I'd say its a decade or two of training under some top lads interspersed with goodly periods spent in indonesia, malaysia, southern philippines etc that allows you to comment on what is and is'nt watered down.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Ok apart from showing that I'm in agreement with some posters here by my 'thanks' to their posts I've tried to remain impartial.

Gonka you talk about MMA and ''traditional'' arts being bound by rules, and yes you're correct they are.. So to is a street assault, or any kind of altercation on the street.

If I train eye gouging, groin attacks, fish hooking etc etc it doesn't mean I've a free hand to use them on the street.. As Cowzer pointed out, any idiot can use them.

I was that idiot when three scumbags tried robbing my car five weeks ago, I let the dogs out and ran down the road with a nice little baseball bat I purchased last time I was in the USA - I've never trained Kendo, Silat or any kind of stick fighting but had I caught the bastards I've no doubt I'd have been pretty bloody deadly swinging that thing around!.

I'm wondering, what kind of experience do you have with a real life assault on the street?.

A little background to my own experience.

I've trained in various styles in the last twenty some years, in the last nine I've mostly trained Judo but with a smattering of MMA, BJJ - and wait for it, through my job - unarmed combat..

As well as being a member of the defence forces for almost 28 years I've also been working the doors of bars & clubs for twenty years so I think I can talk with the benefit of a huge amount of experience in all types of styles and scenario's.

Lets take a row on the door (as an example) and the set of rules under which I train, and to which as a member of the public I'm bound.

Through my Judo and BJJ training I could pretty easily break a joint, lets say an elbow for the craic - but I'd be arrested, charged and most likely convicted by a court of law - the law of the land supersedes any rules under which I train in the club or compete under.. I don't get DQ'd by a ref, I'm convicted by judge and jury so your little argument for the constraints of fighting/training under a set of rules goes out the window.

Unarmed combat, like I said I've trained it here as my profession and I've also been invited to train Krav with the Israeli Defence Forces.

I can not post about the syllabus we use here for obvious reason's, but given a choice in any real life scenario I'll ALWAYS and without exception draw on my ''traditional'' skills, why?... Because they're effective, they work and in twenty some years on the door's I'm pretty unscathed.

So I'll ask you what experience are YOU drawing on?.

Dyr

Iris Tiny Footlocker wrote: »

i
Through my Judo and BJJ training I could pretty easily break a joint, lets say an elbow for the craic - but I'd be arrested, charged and most likely convicted by a court of law - the law of the land supersedes any rules under which I train in the club or compete under.. I don't get DQ'd by a ref, I'm convicted by judge and jury so your little argument for the constraints of fighting/training under a set of rules goes out the window.

Or as one self defence expert put it... You think there are no rules in a street fight? Well there are. The courts call them "laws":eek:

gonko

Iris Tiny Footlocker wrote: »

Ok apart from showing that I'm in agreement with some posters here by my 'thanks' to their posts I've tried to remain impartial.

Gonka you talk about MMA and ''traditional'' arts being bound by rules, and yes you're correct they are.. So to is a street assault, or any kind of altercation on the street.

If I train eye gouging, groin attacks, fish hooking etc etc it doesn't mean I've a free hand to use them on the street.. As Cowzer pointed out, any idiot can use them.

I was that idiot when three scumbags tried robbing my car five weeks ago, I let the dogs out and ran down the road with a nice little baseball bat I purchased last time I was in the USA - I've never trained Kendo, Silat or any kind of stick fighting but had I caught the bastards I've no doubt I'd have been pretty bloody deadly swinging that thing around!.

I'm wondering, what kind of experience do you have with a real life assault on the street?.

A little background to my own experience.

I've trained in various styles in the last twenty some years, in the last nine I've mostly trained Judo but with a smattering of MMA, BJJ - and wait for it, through my job - unarmed combat..

As well as being a member of the defence forces for almost 28 years I've also been working the doors of bars & clubs for twenty years so I think I can talk with the benefit of a huge amount of experience in all types of styles and scenario's.

Lets take a row on the door (as an example) and the set of rules under which I train, and to which as a member of the public I'm bound.

Through my Judo and BJJ training I could pretty easily break a joint, lets say an elbow for the craic - but I'd be arrested, charged and most likely convicted by a court of law - the law of the land supersedes any rules under which I train in the club or compete under.. I don't get DQ'd by a ref, I'm convicted by judge and jury so your little argument for the constraints of fighting/training under a set of rules goes out the window.

Unarmed combat, like I said I've trained it here as my profession and I've also been invited to train Krav with the Israeli Defence Forces.

I can not post about the syllabus we use here for obvious reason's, but given a choice in any real life scenario I'll ALWAYS and without exception draw on my ''traditional'' skills, why?... Because they're effective, they work and in twenty some years on the door's I'm pretty unscathed.

So I'll ask you what experience are YOU drawing on?.

I agree with almost everything you say. I understand you cannot go out and start snapping necks or whatever. BUT.....what if you were backed into a corner and , god forbid, a knife or bottle comes swinging. Traditional arts (some of them) deal with these scenarios. But I am not stupid enough to believe I am untouchable either. Anyone in a street situation is at risk of injury, whether or not you are trained. My point overall is, and speaking from my training....the techniques I learn, I am to make subconcious draws on my reaction. Because I am drilling from attacks from so many different scenarios it is preparing me to defend myself if needed. All of these drills become subconcious after a while and they are done without even thinking. Such as driving a car or walking even!
I have no doubt MMA guys are deadly standing with strikes. And 1 on 1 they are going to be a challenge for anyone. But they dont train for situations that other self defense orientated styles train for, such as weapon attacks or multi-attacker stuff. Historically martial arts was developed and trained with all of this in mind. MMA has taken the effective parts and incorporated it successfully into a great sport. But to have MMA described as the benchmark in martial arts.....I have an issue with that. It IS the benchmark of combat sports. But as a complete martial art (although it isn't one), lets say as a complete style, it does have limitations.
By the way, my posts are not about having keyboard wars on which style will win on the street. That is not what I am posting about. I am not into nor do I look for altercations when I am out. Avoidance is the best policy!

First Aid Ireland

gonko wrote: »

I agree with almost everything you say. I understand you cannot go out and start snapping necks or whatever. BUT.....what if you were backed into a corner and , god forbid, a knife or bottle comes swinging. Traditional arts (some of them) deal with these scenarios. But I am not stupid enough to believe I am untouchable either. Anyone in a street situation is at risk of injury, whether or not you are trained. My point overall is, and speaking from my training....the techniques I learn, I am to make subconcious draws on my reaction. Because I am drilling from attacks from so many different scenarios it is preparing me to defend myself if needed. All of these drills become subconcious after a while and they are done without even thinking. Such as driving a car or walking even!
I have no doubt MMA guys are deadly standing with strikes. And 1 on 1 they are going to be a challenge for anyone. But they dont train for situations that other self defense orientated styles train for, such as weapon attacks or multi-attacker stuff. Historically martial arts was developed and trained with all of this in mind. MMA has taken the effective parts and incorporated it successfully into a great sport. But to have MMA described as the benchmark in martial arts.....I have an issue with that. It IS the benchmark of combat sports. But as a complete martial art (although it isn't one), lets say as a complete style, it does have limitations.
By the way, my posts are not about having keyboard wars on which style will win on the street. That is not what I am posting about. I am not into nor do I look for altercations when I am out. Avoidance is the best policy!

What's difficult for me to work out, and I'm certainly no expert in the field, is how you genuinely test krav maga or combatives or whatever.

MMA/judo/boxing etc are designed for the ring or mat, so that's where they test themselves.

Self defence is designed for the street, but it's tested in the gym too.

That's hard for me to reconcile.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems to me that, with the amount of doormen etc trained in TMAs, the likes of judo and boxing have probably been more extensively tested "on the street" than KM and combatives. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick with that?

gonko

First Aid Ireland wrote: »

What's difficult for me to work out, and I'm certainly no expert in the field, is how you genuinely test krav maga or combatives or whatever.

MMA/judo/boxing etc are designed for the ring or mat, so that's where they test themselves.

Self defence is designed for the street, but it's tested in the gym too.

That's hard for me to reconcile.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems to me that, with the amount of doormen etc trained in TMAs, the likes of judo and boxing have probably been more extensively tested "on the street" than KM and combatives. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick with that?

It all depends on how the stuff is trained imo. All stuff learned needs to be pressure tested against an incoming combination of punches or kicks at good speed. in training we would enter the opponents range and get into the position for doing the certain technique etc, at that point we would obviously back off the attack. But the focus of the training is to get into positions to do enough damage to escape your attacker or render him useless.
I cannot speak for training in KM or how it is taught. As I stated previously from what I have seen Km seems very good. And I seen 2 people (Km guys) in action and seemed good. However I am not an expert on it.

First Aid Ireland

gonko wrote: »

It all depends on how the stuff is trained imo. All stuff learned needs to be pressure tested against an incoming combination of punches or kicks at good speed. in training we would enter the opponents range and get into the position for doing the certain technique etc, at that point we would obviously back off the attack. But the focus of the training is to get into positions to do enough damage to escape your attacker or render him useless.
I cannot speak for training in KM or how it is taught. As I stated previously from what I have seen Km seems very good. And I seen 2 people (Km guys) in action and seemed good. However I am not an expert on it.

i disagree that you can realistically recreate a street attack in a gym. But, I don't have the "street" experience to be able to argue that point for sure.

But, what about the other point. Do you think things like boxing and kickboxing and judo have been more extensively street tested than most combatives/KM type styles? i don't know the answer myself. I only have an opinion.

Peetrik

First Aid Ireland wrote: »

i disagree that you can realistically recreate a street attack in a gym.

I have to say I agree with this. Its all very well drilling technique again and again and if your using weapons I suppose it the best that you can really do apart from paint sticks or shock knives maybe...

I've seen plenty of people look like absolute killers hitting pads who crumble and cover up in sparring, and thats in a safe gym enviroment.
The only thing that will prepare you for street attacks is actual street attacks, and unless your working a door then I don't see how else you could reasonably gain that experience.
Thats just my opnions anyway

arybvtcw0eolkf

Iris Tiny Footlocker wrote: »

I'm wondering, what kind of experience do you have with a real life assault on the street?.

Iris Tiny Footlocker wrote: »

So I'll ask you what experience are YOU drawing on?.

Peetrik wrote: »

The only thing that will prepare you for street attacks is actual street attacks, and unless your working a door then I don't see how else you could reasonably gain that experience.
Thats just my opnions anyway

I've asked and Gonka hasn't answered so I guess its safe to assume Gonka draw's on no actual real life experiences of either competition or putting his training into practice on the street.

Lets try another angle, Gonka what made you choose the style you practice presently?.. I'm taking it your enjoying it, but is there more to it?.

Btw, you talk about knife attacks and preparing for them.. I've been attacked with knives, a syringe, sticks, bricks, ash trays, punches, kicks, head butts and even high heel shoes. I'm not trying to belittle you or make myself out to be a hardman bouncer, all I'm pointing out is that I talk (again) with a huge amount of experience.

And I can tell you now that any kind of competitive martial art is going to give you the edge over ANY self defence system which is just preying on your insecurities.

pablohoney87

Iris Tiny Footlocker wrote: »

I've been attacked with knives, a syringe, sticks, bricks, ash trays, punches, kicks, head butts and even high heel shoes.

Sorry bout that. I had a bad day

themandan6611

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Sorry bout that. I had a bad day

that was just his missus and kids

shlapper

First Aid Ireland wrote: »

i disagree that you can realistically recreate a street attack in a gym. But, I don't have the "street" experience to be able to argue that point for sure.

But, what about the other point. Do you think things like boxing and kickboxing and judo have been more extensively street tested than most combatives/KM type styles? i don't know the answer myself. I only have an opinion.

Well as someone who has always been enthusiastic about "street orientated techniques/systems" as opposed to sport martial arts I'll throw in my 2 cents for what it's worth.
I have come to believe that full contact, mma etc possess an advantage over most "reality systems" due to the high levels of fitness required and most importantly working with non compliant partners.
This goes against my old prejudices against sport arts but has been re enforced by pressure testing traditional streetfighting techniques against (well armoured) full speed, hard/full contact, resisting partners.
This is purely my own opinion and gym experience of course. Im not claiming to be an expert although I assist in teaching where I train.
For me at any rate, sparring with ring rules and grappling (basic in my case) again with rules has improved by a huge factor my performance in hard/full contact street orientated scenario (noncompliant) drills.
I dont work doors and havent been in a streetfight since my late teens, so I wouldn't hold myself up as a badass, but I love a decent dustup in the training hall. I have found that the techniques I was taught in what used to be a well regarded "realistic system" before mma showed us all up, with compliant partners have only a minimal chance of working and could be downright foolhardy if not brought to the next level ie tested against a variety of fast moving determined opponents.
Personally Im a fan of mma type training with a view to avoiding ground fightin in multiple attacker situations, but realising that its neccessary to train in it for the likely scenario of winding up there. I have huge respect for combatives also, especially guys like Mick Coup, Lee Morrison etc who I feel have shown deficiencies in traditional street orientated arts as much as mma has.
In short, boxing, judo, mma etc are in my opinion (and thats all it is folks) more tested for real combat than most other stuff around.
This is my first post on boards so I apologise if my answer is long winded.

Peetrik

Great first post shlapper, welcome to boards

shlapper

Peetrik wrote: »

Great first post shlapper, welcome to boards

Thanks Peetrik, its a pleasure to take part.

bushi

cowzerp wrote: »

Most Krav maga I see is just low level Mma, usually taught by tkd coaches showing bits of Bjj badly, thai badly etc

I think it's 1 of those systems that give people false sense of security, And has way to much emphasis on profit for my Liking.

well, the one Krav Maga I was practicing (and most likely, it depends on who is the instructor, what school/organization, etc - as usual with any MA), my instructor have had some sparing fights with then-best BBJ specialists in our city (friendly, light contact, just to share experience etc.), and while he appreciated the stamina and physical abilities of MMA guys (quote: "if you are in a fight with one of these guys, you have 30 seconds to take them down, or they'll dominate you physically, period"), one funny thing to notice was: most of the positions ended up in him being able to escape various submissions attempts, by doing stuff that Krav MAga focuses on, while his opponent(s) were saying "this is foul, you cannot do that". I'll let anyone draw his own conclusions with regards to "realism" of different styles being "compared" (and of course, it is NEVER two styles fighting, it is two fighters facing each other)

My €0.02.

Oh and yes, I do agree that big aspect of KM is financial, and mostly because it gains in popularity, the quality can sometimes suffer - but more often than not, at beginners levels (more advanced folks tend to practice with different attitude and intensity, also have different relationship with instructor, than your average tatooed MA punter, stopping by for couple of months, because KM is the most recent hip thing to do.

As for "giving the false sense of security", well most definitely, it applies to beginners (and the stupid ones, that is), just as everywhere else. I am quite positive, that in a real scenario, facing multiple opponents, facing ultimate pressure and "to be, or cease to be" moment - KM is one of the best things that you can do, to be prepared. It is geared from get go towards such situations, and it is SIMPLE and intuitive system.

Listen, Israeli are doing this stuff (and keep modifying it) not because BJJ or MMA is better, and they want to catch up to get some medals. They simply try & adopt what is working, and prune what isn't, ON THE STREET, and not in the octagon. There is a trail of DEAD BODIES of those, who were doing things that haven't been working, and these things, are not a part of KM system anymore. Israel is rather a tough place, to make mistakes about your fighting style of choice. Simples.

First Aid Ireland wrote: »

Having said that, I think he addition of sparring is a great idea. Next step would be to spar against other clubs and other styles to see how it matches up.

...and how exactly you want to achieve that in a sparring environment (knowing that KM FOCUSES on attacking vital spots - groin, throat, neck, eyes), without reducing your "career" as KM practitioner, to your first sparring with someone better than you? There's no such thing like "foul" in KM, if you need, you gouge your opponent's eye, you bite him, you do whatever it takes to disable him as fast as possible and GET AWAY from danger.

The whole reason why sparrings that you described, are "in a different style than KM", is because you cannot really spare (full contact) in KM, without risking health (or life) of the sparring partners. But sparring in general is a great training tool, in that it teaches you timing, distance, balance, reading opponent, taking a beating, dominate or not let to be dominated by sheer determination & aggression, etc. So people incorporate it sometimes.

I see a lot of misconceptions in this thread. KM is not a sport, and it's very substance doesn't make it really very suitable to "adapt it" as a sport. This is a system, focused on disabling your opponent(s) in ANY POSSIBLE way, the whole system revolves around it. Take it away, and the individual "magic moves", "adapted" to suit the requirements and restrictions of the ring fight, don't make too much sense, and you are better served indeed, getting training in one of the systems, that revolve & focus on and operate within the "sport" rules from the get go.

Ddad wrote: »

I do beleive KM would be very effective in a fight if you were proficient. To be honest I've only seen a handful of lads who were though and most had alternative MA backgrounds so had the groundwork done. Of course some of the israeli lads are machines! They're doing it 20 years though.

...true, this! way too many kravers are coming to classes with atitude they'll learn "death touch" in 20hrs worth of training, and they're golden. Nonsense, as with everything, to be really on par with skilled, trained, determined opponent - you also need to be skilled, trained & determined. To this point, I agree with MMA folks here, that MMA has the potential to make you more determined, maybe skilled, than sloppily taught KM. But properly taught KM - I cannot see how it wouldn't prepare you mentally just as well as MMA does.

First Aid Ireland wrote: »

What's difficult for me to work out, and I'm certainly no expert in the field, is how you genuinely test krav maga or combatives or whatever

...mostly, you analyze the CCTV footage in Israel, when special forces or civilian KM practitioners (of any level) were involved, and see their reactions to the real world threats, and how effective particular technique was/wasn't. Or talk to the guys who were attacked with deadly intentions by gangs/mob of many, or attempted to kidnap by a gang of few, and listen to what they have to say about "what works" (well as a hint, I can share, that those who lived to tell the tale, preach one thing for sure - whatever you do, you stay on your feet and NEVER take fight to the ground, NEVER EVER do that in a life threatening situation. I am sure BJJ experts would disagree here, and maybe we can get in spiritual contact with some souls who tried & have failed, to get their opinion )

Lastly as for the argument "MMA vs Trad. MA", well, the whole FOUNDATION and premise of KM was based on Imi's EXPERIENCE, when fighting Hitlerjugend Nazis (being boxing and wrestling or judo expert himself) and trying to teach his friends how to fight, he noticed that in extreme stress situation, multiple opponents, life threatening scenario - traditional Martial Artist needs to be on an expert level, to make use of his skills. So at it's foundations, KM is very unorthodox, and focuses solely on what is simple, intuitive, and what can be taught in the least amount of time, and still increase your chances to walk away after diffusing the threat, on your own legs. Better yet, diffuse the threat without fighting (I remember very well seminars with then- technical head of IKMF, saying things like "if someone wants your money and threatens you with any weapon, just give him your wallet, it's just money." How is that for bursting your ego, and preparing you mentally to diffuse situation instead of escalating it )

I agree, that perceived simplicity of the system poses the risk of producing sloppy self-pronounced instructors, who think they learned it all, and are good to start teaching themselves. If it was MMA, such fools would be (are) verified in competitions rather quickly, here they have a chance to stay around for longer, having a feast on the unknowing beginners. But just do yourselves a favor, and go to a seminar with guys from IKMF (cannot seem to remember the other official organization name, but there are two official Israeli KM organizations), most of the time, former special forces guys from their appropriate country's armed forces. I cannot reasonably argue with anyone, that these folks are the real deal.

jaysus, that was even longer than my usual lenghty self. Imagine, that all I wanted to find originally, was some contact to Carlow KM classes, lol!

ArtyBoy

bushi wrote: »

well, the one Krav Maga I was practicing (and most likely, it depends on who is the instructor, what school/organization, etc - as usual with any MA), my instructor have had some sparing fights with then-best BBJ specialists in our city (friendly, light contact, just to share experience etc.), and while he appreciated the stamina and physical abilities of MMA guys (quote: "if you are in a fight with one of these guys, you have 30 seconds to take them down, or they'll dominate you physically, period"), one funny thing to notice was: most of the positions ended up in him being able to escape various submissions attempts, by doing stuff that Krav MAga focuses on, while his opponent(s) were saying "this is foul, you cannot do that". I'll let anyone draw his own conclusions with regards to "realism" of different styles being "compared" (and of course, it is NEVER two styles fighting, it is two fighters facing each other)

My €0.02.

Oh and yes, I do agree that big aspect of KM is financial, and mostly because it gains in popularity, the quality can sometimes suffer - but more often than not, at beginners levels (more advanced folks tend to practice with different attitude and intensity, also have different relationship with instructor, than your average tatooed MA punter, stopping by for couple of months, because KM is the most recent hip thing to do.

As for "giving the false sense of security", well most definitely, it applies to beginners (and the stupid ones, that is), just as everywhere else. I am quite positive, that in a real scenario, facing multiple opponents, facing ultimate pressure and "to be, or cease to be" moment - KM is one of the best things that you can do, to be prepared. It is geared from get go towards such situations, and it is SIMPLE and intuitive system.

Listen, Israeli are doing this stuff (and keep modifying it) not because BJJ or MMA is better, and they want to catch up to get some medals. They simply try & adopt what is working, and prune what isn't, ON THE STREET, and not in the octagon.

I find that (bold) very hard to believe.

I am by no means an expert but I have trained in boxing, kickboxing and the basics of BJJ/MMA and I have also trained in krav maga whilst serving overseas with the Irish Army, our krav maga instructors were Swedish special forces and they were thought KM by Israeli special forces, so it was about as close to the real thing as one could get.

My observations were that although better than someone who never trained in MA, by and large even the KM instructors demonstrated very poor technique in regards to punching (open handed) and kicking when compared to an experienced MMA practitioner, this doesn't bode well for the students of KM who would have far less exposure to intensive training other than the odd seminar.

Their wrist locks and fancy looking gouges and throat grabs would in my opinion be mostly impractical in most realistic scenarios due to the nature of street fighting and would be just about as useless as a BJJ practitioner attempting to pull guard in a street fight.

I have worked on the doors around Dublin for over 7 years so I have a fair idea of what will and will not work in a street situation.

Other than running away to fight another day, there is no doubt that striking is king when it comes to street defence and in order to be an effective striker you have to repeat techniques over and over and over, not just for a few weeks or months but for years, in addition to this you need to spar to test the effectiveness of your striking and defence against someone who is of equal or better ability, the benefits of this are that you will in time develop an ability to control your natural fight or flight syndrome and you will learn to strike accurately whilst adrenaline is coursing through your body plus your confidence in your ability will grow.

In a street fighting situation everything is different, unless your striking/self defence technique is second nature and an automatic response you will flounder and panic and most if not all of the KM techniques you learned on your couple of weeks/weekend KM course will vanish from your mind.
In a street confrontation there is an element of mental panic involved for most average Joe's and the adrenalin will be pumping, all of which effects the accuracy of any strikes you make, particularly if you've not got much experience in dealing with aggressive confrontations.

If the fight goes to the ground, which in my experience is very common if someone is not knocked out in the first minute or so, then BJJ or Judo is your only man followed by MMA ground and pound. Nothing else that currently exists in the martial arts world even comes close to these MA combinations for realistic defence, in my opinion.

All that being said, there is some benefit to be had for average Joe or Jolene training in self defence systems such as KM, it's far better for people to have even a basic knowledge of self defence than to know nothing but if anyone believes that a few weeks or months of KM will equip the average person with the ability to effectively fight off an experienced fighter or street brawler they are just deluded.

There are no short cuts, a few weekend seminars or even a few weeks of KM training is not going to be of much benefit to anyone.
If you are interested in self defence bypass the fads and get down to an MMA/BJJ club or even boxing or kickboxing and stick at it for at least 1 year but preferably several years, only then will you have a realistic chance of defending yourself with some level of realistic confidence and ability.

My €0.02 cent.

bushi

ArtyBoy wrote: »

...but if anyone believes that a few weeks or months of KM will equip the average person with the ability to effectively fight off an experienced fighter or street brawler they are just deluded.

sure thing, my whole point is, 6 months of KM training, will most probably prepare you better than 6 months of any other martial arts training, to deal with real life threats (other situations, are not worth dealing with, by using force). Allthough boxing is pretty fast to get some skills far above your average drunk/two, IMHO.

If you plan to stick around for years to come, well, to each his own, I'd say, if you are at expert level in combat farting even, I suppose you'd be able to fight off inexperienced opponent. My humble opinion. I am not in the position to say, if 20 years of KM will prepare you better than 20 years of whatever else style. That really doesn't make too much sense, at that level, it is SOLELY down to individuals, I'd say.

I am having an issue with the ridiculing KM in this thread by many people, who just don't seem to take into account many aspects in their "comparisons".

Peace

Peetrik

bushi wrote: »

my whole point is, 6 months of KM training, will most probably prepare you better than 6 months of any other martial arts training, to deal with real life threats

Complete hubris. You really could not be more wrong. The very reason people slate KM is because of this type of 'short cut to hardman' nonsense.

All things being equal, I'd put money on the guy training a full contact competitive sport over KM every time.

bushi

"All things being equal", (and I don't think you really meant that), I'd rather put my money on the education/fighting system with well over half of the century of top-notch guys, whose main goals are to create and evolve a system, that is easy to learn, based on natural instincts& reactions to various attacks, focused on attacking vital targets that are relatively unexplored in competitive martial arts, and focusing from get go on whole areas that are left untouched in competitive MAs - like strategy against multiple opponents, for example. But that's my opinion only, while supported by the reasoning above, but I might be wrong of course. I do not think I am, if "all other things are being equal", though.

Regards,

Peetrik

bushi wrote: »

I might be wrong of course. I do not think I am,

You are wrong. Very wrong. The reasons have been covered ad nauseum in previous KM threads so I'll just copy and paste points from a previous thread....

1. You personally have never actually gouged someones eye out or broken all their fingers off or any of the stuff that 'no rules' systems teach. Unless you have drilled the actual strike over and over full force against a resisting opponent then you also don't know any 'no rules' moves you just know the theory.

2. The traditional MA practitioner is also at liberty to ignore any rules on 'the street'. Personally I'd put my money on the guy who has trained by striking at a moving fully resisting opponent than the guy who has practiced slow motion choreography on landing that kick to the balls.

3. I'm only speaking about Thai here as its what I'm familiar with but this does apply to other sports with rules like MMA and Boxing. Thai is a professional sport, people rely on the money to feed their familys. It is constantly being analysed and tested against fully resisting opponents. There is no fcuking around with the techniques, if it works its kept if it doesn't its discarded. Its not some guy in his garage dreaming up techniques or trying to come up with something to make it different from other systems.
If it works in the ring against a professionally trained fighter in peak physical condition it will work on drunk gobshítes.

bushi

Peetrik wrote: »

You are wrong. Very wrong. The reasons have been covered ad nauseum in previous KM threads so I'll just copy and paste points from a previous thread....

1. You personally have never actually gouged someones eye out or broken all their fingers off or any of the stuff that 'no rules' systems teach. Unless you have drilled the actual strike over and over full force against a resisting opponent then you also don't know any 'no rules' moves you just know the theory.

2. The traditional MA practitioner is also at liberty to ignore any rules on 'the street'. Personally I'd put my money on the guy who has trained by striking at a moving fully resisting opponent than the guy who has practiced slow motion choreography on landing that kick to the balls.

3. I'm only speaking about Thai here as its what I'm familiar with but this does apply to other sports with rules like MMA and Boxing. Thai is a professional sport, people rely on the money to feed their familys. It is constantly being analysed and tested against fully resisting opponents. There is no fcuking around with the techniques, if it works its kept if it doesn't its discarded. Its not some guy in his garage dreaming up techniques or trying to come up with something to make it different from other systems.
If it works in the ring against a professionally trained fighter in peak physical condition it will work on drunk gobshítes.

Ad1, ok, let's assume that all the KM classes are as ****ty as the ones that you have seen, and say you are right, because no one practices kM with the proper, realistic intensity

Ad2, he is "at liberty" to do something, that he hasn't really practiced on the mat, vs. Being taught from GET GO, to do what your guy is "at liberty" to modify his training routine to (I guess it doesn't go against your argument from pt. 1, about "practising something at full speed full force on resisting opponent", I guess it only applies to KM)

Ad3, yep, because special forces hand combat instructors around the world, are not doing that **** to make a living (often, with their own, or their students' life at stakes), they are "dreaming that stuff up". In garages. Yes, that's exactly what they do, therefore coming up with nonsense systems like KM. There's no analysing of operations after teams armed interventions, no CCTV analysing, to check what worked and what didn't, no biomechanics analysts, coming up with most efficient extensions of natural body reactions to various attacks, no physical and mental conditioning, all that is, is a bunch of dreamers, trying to be "different". These silly spec ops!

Thanks for explaining,
Regards

Ps. Btw, someone above put the argument, that even instructors are not punching well - using open hand (actually, I think he meant base of hand). This is actually very recent development, introduced maybe 6-7 years ago, specifically for civilian version (assuming people being trained are not advanced Martial Artists). Reason - this kind of strike is less prone to injury, and almost as effective, as fist strike, also depending on the target, opens further opportunities to follow through with grabbing, our beaten to death eye gouging etc. Some dreamer came up with that in his garage, because he was bored to death, with people using their fists and injuring their wrists/fingers, lol

Peetrik

bushi wrote: »

Ad1, ok, let's assume that all the KM classes are as ****ty as the ones that you have seen, and say you are right, because no one practices kM with the proper, realistic intensity

Well you haven't. Simply put, unless you work on a door then the only way you can rack up experience fighting fully resisting opponents full contact is in the ring. KM lads don't compete.

Do you work as a doorman?

bushi wrote: »

Ad2, he is "at liberty" to do something, that he hasn't really practiced on the mat, vs. Being taught from GET GO, to do what your guy is "at liberty" to modify his training routine to (I guess it doesn't go against your argument from pt. 1, about "practising something at full speed full force on resisting opponent", I guess it only applies to KM)

.... what?

bushi wrote: »

Ad3, yep, because special forces hand combat instructors around the world, are not doing that **** to make a living (often, with their own, or their students' life at stakes)

So the Isralies train KM... so what? The Korean armed forces train Taekwondo to keep their students alive... doesn't make Taekwondo the least bit better than any other style.

Having been in the army doesn't make someone automatically better at hand to hand combat, its the people who train a full contact manner against fully resisting opponents twice a day, 6 days a week that are going to excel at martial arts.

returnNull

bushi wrote: »

"All things being equal", (and I don't think you really meant that), I'd rather put my money on the education/fighting system with well over half of the century of top-notch guys, whose main goals are to create and evolve a system, that is easy to learn, based on natural instincts& reactions to various attacks, focused on attacking vital targets that are relatively unexplored in competitive martial arts, and focusing from get go on whole areas that are left untouched in competitive MAs - like strategy against multiple opponents, for example. But that's my opinion only, while supported by the reasoning above, but I might be wrong of course. I do not think I am, if "all other things are being equal", though.

Regards,

did you swallow the WHOLE instruction manual?:pac:

bushi

Peetrik wrote: »

.
.... what?

Read slooowly again. Your pt.2 contradicts your pt.1, unless pt.1 only applies to the dreamers doing KM (at which point, I tend to believe you think it does)

Having been in the army doesn't make someone automatically better at hand to hand combat, its the people who train a full contact manner against fully resisting opponents twice a day, 6 days a week that are going to excel at martial arts.

Ah, oh, ok - so now we are comparing someone who did 40 hrs of kM classes, PERIOD, versus someone who is doing 40 hrs of MMA training every two weeks, and we are coming to (how insightful!) conclusion, that the latter will be more efficient??? And what happen to the "all other things being equal" thing?

bushi

returnNull wrote: »

did you swallow the WHOLE instruction manual?:pac:

Null returned, indeed - even when not called...

Peetrik

bushi wrote: »

Read slooowly again. Your pt.2 contradicts your pt.1, unless pt.1 only applies to the dreamers doing KM (at which point, I tend to believe you think it does)

No, it doesn't in the least, its relevant and congruent. Also being sarky when you're wrong just makes you sound silly.

Also I take it you don't work on a door and so haven't actually repeatedly drilled any 'no rules' moves on a fully resisting opponents.

bushi wrote: »

Ah, oh, ok - so now we are comparing someone who did 40 hrs of kM classes, PERIOD, versus someone who is doing 40 hrs of MMA training every two weeks, and we are coming to (how insightful) conclusion, that the latter will be more efficient??? And what happen to the "all other things being equal" thing?

You're the one who introduced the military into the discussion, no me. My point is that a branch of the military training a style doesn't mean squat. I would place much much more weight on whether professional MMA fighters use a style than the military.

All other things being equal is an idiom, it essentially means 'excluding other factors'.. in this case other factors could be a large weight advantage or maybe one combatant being drunk.

Anyway, I get the impression you're not really in a place where you can take any of this on board at the moment, being as enamored with KM as it appears so I'm going to leave it at that as I'm sure everyone else is as bored with KM vs other styles debates as I am.

Do try and think critically about all the claims that KM makes instead of just accepting it.

Best of luck

bushi

Peetrik wrote: »

No, it doesn't in the least, its relevant and congruent. Also being sarky when you're wrong just makes you sound silly.

jaysus, you say "all other things being equal", and than it turns out that what you consider "equal", is some MA noob, taking some basic, casual KM classes, and you stack him against guys who "train twice a day, 6 days a week". Where to even start, to point you out that "all things" are as different in this case, as they possibly can? Do I really need to do that? Also, you say in one sentence, that KM practitioners don't practice their moves full speed full power on uncooperative opponent, therefore it renders their practice rubbish - but in the next sentence, you say that any other martial artist can "modify" their moves in a street fight, to address vital points that they are generally NOT addressing, in their "full speed, full force" training, but hey, that's OK, and it is NOT self contradictory - m'kay...

Also I take it you don't work on a door and so haven't actually repeatedly drilled any 'no rules' moves on a fully resisting opponents.

no I am not working on a door, nor I ever stated that KM is the best thing for a bouncer to practice. It most probably isn't, for the whole host of reasons, starting with possible legal complications. But I take it, that we have TWO benchmarks now, one is MMA as an ultimate fighting style, and the second is a doorman, as an ultimate fighter. In that case, I stand to be corrected, because nothing works as good in a discussion, as an a'priori assumption (I'll also take it, that bouncers will be taken on board by special forces around the globe, to teach them hand combat, as soon as military guys finally realise, that they hold the key to their ultimate survival). And that's the reason why I brought military into discussion, firstly, KM is a military style (even so called civilian one, is deeply rooted in military combat), and secondly, I will take the word from people who risk their lives, versus the ones who risk their sporting career. Perspective.

All other things being equal is an idiom, it essentially means 'excluding other factors'.. in this case other factors could be a large weight advantage or maybe one combatant being drunk.

..seriously? thanks for pointing out the obvious. The problem is, you are NOT taking out all HUGELY meaningfull variables from your reasoning, quite the opposite. See above.

Anyway, I get the impression you're not really in a place where you can take any of this on board at the moment, being as enamored with KM as it appears so I'm going to leave it at that as I'm sure everyone else is as bored with KM vs other styles debates as I am.

oh please, stop with these ad hominem nonsense - or did you lost the argument already? This is not the first time you are referring to my humble person, instead of the discussion at hand. My humble person is not relevant, and certainly not important enough, to warrant your attention (or my answer)

Do try and think critically about all the claims that KM makes instead of just accepting it.

Best of luck

Yet another ad hominem "argument"... I assure you that critical thinking is one of my strongest character traits. I don't give a flying duck for whatever, whomever "claims", I listen to everybody and follow no one. When I am picking some direction for myself, it is for a REASON, and nothing else, and I will be either convinced by other REASONS, or I will stay my course. I am by no means MA expert, although I've tried few things in my life, KM is but one of them. And no, I havent tried MMA myself, I just wasn't ever convinced, that style that focuses on a single opponent, fully prepared, warmed up properly, similar body build/strength, safe base to walk on/fell onto, is ANYTHING that I want to build my foundations upon.
And yes, there were street brawlers and hooligans and cage fighters attending our KM classes/seminars, for a long while. They were I must say much more open to take on board whatever good KM has to offer to them, than what I have generally have read on internet forums.

Best,
M

Doug Cartel

bushi wrote: »

Also, you say in one sentence, that KM practitioners don't practice their moves full speed full power on uncooperative opponent, therefore it renders their practice rubbish - but in the next sentence, you say that any other martial artist can "modify" their moves in a street fight, to address vital points that they are generally NOT addressing, in their "full speed, full force" training, but hey, that's OK, and it is NOT self contradictory - m'kay...

I don't see the contradiction. Neither style practices eye-gouges/groin shots at full force against a resisting opponent. Both styles will therefore have to be modified to take these into account. Therefore touting it as an advantage of KM is not really a runner.

I'll also take it, that bouncers will be taken on board by special forces around the globe, to teach them hand combat, as soon as military guys finally realise, that they hold the key to their ultimate survival

This is unlikely as bouncers deal with un-armed (or at least nothing bigger than a knife/stick) encounters in street situations. Military encounters take place between squads armed with rifles, often with close air support or some other form of back up.

And that's the reason why I brought military into discussion, firstly, KM is a military style (even so called civilian one, is deeply rooted in military combat), and secondly, I will take the word from people who risk their lives, versus the ones who risk their sporting career. Perspective.

Are you currently employed in the military? If not why do you want military training?

And no, I havent tried MMA myself, I just wasn't ever convinced, that style that focuses on a single opponent, fully prepared, warmed up properly, similar body build/strength, safe base to walk on/fell onto, is ANYTHING that I want to build my foundations upon.

You don't think being able to deal with one opponent who is similarly sized to you would be a good place to start before learning to deal with multiple opponents who may be bigger than you or armed? You don't think there is any merit in learning to walk before learning to run?

Doug Cartel

I should also add that I haven't read through this thread fully, so I might be going over stuff that has already been covered, but there is a prominent Krav Maga group operating in Ireland that offer 12 hour courses that are advertised with an implication that at the end of the course you will be prepared to defend yourself on the street. Not 12 months of training, 12 hours.

Regrettably, this has soured a lot of people's views on KM. I think there are other KM groups around now that do train hard and don't get caught up in the hyperbole, but you'll have a hard time convincing some people of this, as these groups aren't as well advertised.

bushi

Doug Cartel wrote: »

I don't see the contradiction. Neither style practices eye-gouges/groin shots at full force against a resisting opponent. Both styles will therefore have to be modified to take these into account. Therefore touting it as an advantage of KM is not really a runner.

...and where was I "touting" it? I merely point out, that KM FOCUSES on attacks on vital points. Another person that needs to have his bias confirmed, so he cannot see what has been said and by whom? It is my adversary here, who was "touting" full speed full force attacks, as THE ONLY viable way of "realistic" training, but it wouldn't stop him from contradicting himself in the next sentence, by saying, that if you are NOT KM practicioner, than of course, you can always modify your technique, when applying it on the street. I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in his own arguments. But bias is what bias is, and even when pointed out, it remains. Even spreads, seemingly.

This is unlikely as bouncers deal with un-armed (or at least nothing bigger than a knife/stick) encounters in street situations. Military encounters take place between squads armed with rifles, often with close air support or some other form of back up.

lol, close air support, in military unarmed hand combat?? hmmm, you are really trying very hard to make case here?

Are you currently employed in the military?

...no, I am not, why my humble person is being called into focus again?

If not why do you want military training?

...to gain advantage, over non-military, non-lethal training?

You don't think being able to deal with one opponent who is similarly sized to you would be a good place to start before learning to deal with multiple opponents who may be bigger than you or armed?

no, not at all. It will root you firmly with a whole bunch of bad habits and wrong explicit or implicit assumptions (i.e., if I had a dollar for every time I've heard, that "it is best to take the fight to the ground, because.... blahblahblah"... OR a quarter every time I've heard that you need to stare your opponent down intensely, to read him (all the time, missing all other possible threats that MIGHT be surrounding you). All great advices, ON THE RING

Oh BTW, I know it is a ****ty show in general, but watch the "Human Weapon" episode, where they do Krav Maga, and see how that little guy, who has MMA background, is being shouted at, and stands up from the ground with very, very stupid look on his face time and time again - each time he is pressed hard, and INSTINCTIVELY, he takes fight to the ground - because that's his comfort zone, because that's what he has been practising? See what I mean?

You don't think there is any merit in learning to walk before learning to run?

...by any means, if you have some groundworks done, more power to you. I agree that KM is not the best place to teach you the best technically possible punching, for example. But NO, I gave you example above, which explains why it is better to focus on broader perspective training from get go - and again, it depends on your long term goals, if you plan to be a cage fighter, and devote loads of your time and efforts to training that it is not best idea, if you want to be MORE prepared to fight off the real life-threat, and devote just PART of your time to it, it is a very good place to start (and a much better than MMA is, for the boatloads of reasons I gave above). And before there's a shower of "waaah, waaaah" comments, stating the obvious, NO , I do not think for a second, that if you devote part of your time, part of your attention to KM, you will be able to fight off dedicated, full-time MMA fighters, or brawlers, or anyone more determined, or significantly stronger & determined than yourself, or God forbid, a gang of such people, or a bouncer, for that matter. What I am saying, applies when "all other things are equal" - but unlike other people here, I really mean "all other things being equal"

And this is EOT for me, much appreciate everybody's time.

returnNull

bushi wrote: »

Null returned, indeed - even when not called...

you didnt check the stack