Opinions of Krav Maga?

This is a subject I find quite interesting. I have no experience of Krav, beyond what I have read on the internet, and the odd condescending put down about boxing from the occassional krav practitioner that I have come across.

What annoys me about it is the way that many tout it as the kind of fighting system that renders you a lethal killing machine.

I have boxed all my life, and one of the ways in which my krav acquaintances have tried to beliitle its usefulness is to suggest that krav teaches you to fight for survival, throat punching etc, whereas boxing is sport fighting, and thus a totally different mentality and almost inapplicable in a ‘real’ situation. Now, I can appreciate that there is a small amount of legitimate value in such comments. But I think the validity of such criticism is extremely limited.

By way of further background, I live in a particularly bad area of London, and am unfortunately no stranger to the kind of ‘real situation’ a lot of krav practitioners on the internet talk about in hushed tones (although I avoid trouble as far as possible). Without wanting to go into any particular detail, despite not having trained throat strikes, eye gouges etc, I have not found myself unable to do them on the rare occassion that such a level of violnce has been called for.

I think what is often ignored, when the superiority of krav is being claimed, is that sport fighting has enormous value, and attracts a particular kind of person. In my limited experience of krav practitioners in the flesh, i am not aware of any of them having been in one of these ‘situations’. In my experience, and I appreciate it is probably not reflective of the good sides of it, the people who go towards it generally want to be tough guys with some kind of lethal power at their finger tips.

While the techniques it teaches are no doubt valuable and potentially lethal, I would still back any of the boys from my boxing gym against any krav practitioner I have met. People who sport fight, in my experience, have the mentality and the tools that it takes to win a fight against most people in a street fight, even those who have trained selk defence. I appreciate that krav teaches you to produce aggression and to control adrenaline etc, but there is, in my experience, a different mentality amongst those who fight and train to fight for years because they enjoy it, and those who want to keep the boogeyman away should it ever find them.

Turned into a bit of a ramble, and I didnt set out to bash krav. Just something that bothers me about some of the people that swear by it.

[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
This is a subject I find quite interesting. I have no experience of Krav, beyond what I have read on the internet, and the odd condescending put down about boxing from the occassional krav practitioner that I have come across.

What annoys me about it is the way that many tout it as the kind of fighting system that renders you a lethal killing machine.

I have boxed all my life, and one of the ways in which my krav acquaintances have tried to beliitle its usefulness is to suggest that krav teaches you to fight for survival, throat punching etc, whereas boxing is sport fighting, and thus a totally different mentality and almost inapplicable in a ‘real’ situation. Now, I can appreciate that there is a small amount of legitimate value in such comments. But I think the validity of such criticism is extremely limited.

By way of further background, I live in a particularly bad area of London, and am unfortunately no stranger to the kind of ‘real situation’ a lot of krav practitioners on the internet talk about in hushed tones (although I avoid trouble as far as possible). Without wanting to go into any particular detail, despite not having trained throat strikes, eye gouges etc, I have not found myself unable to do them on the rare occassion that such a level of violnce has been called for.

I think what is often ignored, when the superiority of krav is being claimed, is that sport fighting has enormous value, and attracts a particular kind of person. In my limited experience of krav practitioners in the flesh, i am not aware of any of them having been in one of these ‘situations’. In my experience, and I appreciate it is probably not reflective of the good sides of it, the people who go towards it generally want to be tough guys with some kind of lethal power at their finger tips.

While the techniques it teaches are no doubt valuable and potentially lethal, I would still back any of the boys from my boxing gym against any krav practitioner I have met. People who sport fight, in my experience, have the mentality and the tools that it takes to win a fight against most people in a street fight, even those who have trained selk defence. I appreciate that krav teaches you to produce aggression and to control adrenaline etc, but there is, in my experience, a different mentality amongst those who fight and train to fight for years because they enjoy it, and those who want to keep the boogeyman away should it ever find them.

Turned into a bit of a ramble, and I didnt set out to bash krav. Just something that bothers me about some of the people that swear by it. [/quote]

You make a lot of good points, including one that isn’t touched on all the time - Krav can teach people to fight for their lives in situations where it’s not legally justifiable.

A punch is a punch, you kayo somebody and they hit their head and die yea, you’re up for manslaughter, no doubt.

But some of the stuff Krav teaches - such as totally disabling a downed attacker - has a place on the battlefield but not in the street where people like cops and lawyers and judges are going to get involved.

That one class I went to and watched, I’ll give that instructor credit, because he told his people that when showing them a choke hold - “You can use this, but you’re goin in front of a fuckin judge if you do.”

Now, I thought maybe he should have put a little more emphasis on WHEN you could justifiably use it, but who knows.

Now, sport can fuck you too. I’m a small guy, and whenever anyone got me to the ground, the first thing I did was go for their throat. That’s right - I grab that fuckin box in there and I pull. I watched a guy puke and go into the shakes one time when I latched onto that thing.

When I started doing BJJ, I had to get AWAY from that, because that’s not legal in the sport, and now I find that I have trained myself to NOT follow that instinct. So sport, and it’s rules, can hurt.

But, the one thing I can say is that the best streetfighters I’ve ever known were guys who were either fantastic wrestlers in high school or golden gloves boxers. Not because their moves are so deadly, or because they’re stronger or smarter, but because of the pure amount of hours they’ve put into the craft.

You throw a punch at someone who has no experience fighting, they’re probably gonna shit themselves or do some of that flailing bullshit; you throw a punch at a twice a week karate cat, and they’re gonna try to do that wax on bullshit. And when they get pegged they’re gonna freeze because they’ve never REALLY seen hands let go at them.

You throw a punch at a boxer though, and it’s just fucking Tuesday for him. He’s gonna react like he always has over his hundreds of hours of training, and you’re getting hit five times before you’re done swinging.

You come at a wrestler and he’s gonna shoot right in on you because that’s what he did every day after school for four hours for ten years, and you’ll be on your back and getting pummeled.

It’s like for the guys who played football… if you’re screwing around on a field or in a pickup game and you go to tackle somebody, you don’t think about it - you’re just looking at their belt line, lining up that angle, and making the tackle. You did it every day in practice, and now that’s just IN you.

Now, if I was trying to learn football at age 27 like most guys try to learn martial arts at age 27, and going twice a week for an hour, I could do that for four years and I’m not going to be anywhere near as good as the dude who just played a couple years in high school, because it was four hours a day for him, every day, all fucking year.

And of course, there’s the fact that the news articles speak for themselves - the list of boxers who are pretty brutal streetfighters is a long one, from Micky Ward to Floyd Mayweather Sr. to BHop to Arturo to Tyson… the shit does work, but more because of the length and depth of training than anything else.

LondonBoxer, though it may may make your Krav aquaintences mad, I’m apologizing on Krav’s behalf anyway (I’m a Kravist & I do swear by it).

They should not have been ripping on you for being a boxer - as I’ve said on this forum before, boxers tend to do extremely well in Krav because they know how to punch, have great footwork & conditioning, and aren’t afraid to get in there & mix it up.

***Any style that teaches you to get punched hard in the face and keep fighting is fine by me. *** Krav & boxing both do that.

Add some kicks, chokes, etc. & you have one scary dude. You can tell your smart-aleck friends that one of the things we teach in Krav is that the best defense against most kicks is a hard right cross to the face, which I’m sure you can deliver.

And by the way, we don’t focus very much at all on footwork in Krav, and mine just sucked so bad for so long I went & got some outside coaching. At a boxing gym.

It may sound like I’m ripping on Krav. I’m not. I’m in love with Krav, I have deep faith in it and in my ability to use it to survive. It just pisses me off when people try to make someone feel like the style they practice is inferior.

Londonboxer,

I for one don’t actually train Krav, I train a different RMA called SENTO/iCAT, so I can’t speak for any Krav people out there (I think Miss P did a good job above doing so already anyway). The system I train in though heavily incorporates boxing/kickboxing into it’s training (Joe Lewis has trained with Sugar Ray Robinson, Ed Futch, Cus D’amato, Angelo Dundee, and Muhammad Ali to name a few). Anyone who tells you that gaining skill in boxing/kickboxing, wrestling, judo, BJJ or any of the other combat sports isn’t going to improve your ability to defend yourself in a real situation is either trying to sell you something, or in complete denial.

It is true, as Irish pointed out above, that those are all sports with rules, and they can as a result cause you to become “locked” within their rule set though. They also always assume mutually agreed upon (and legal/sanctioned) combat as well as unarmed combat and therefore never address things like avoidance, aversion, ambushes, multiple opponents, etc… So, if you really want to focus on the self defense side of training them, you have to be willing to at times train outside their rules (adding things like biting, eye attacks, nerve attacks, body handles, weaponry, multiple opponents, different environments, etc…) and keep a “reality” mindset.

Another point that you and Irish made, which I think is crucial (and I sort of touched on in an earlier post) is the difference in hours of training time/experience between most serious combat athletes and most martial artists. Even a far inferior art (which I’m not suggesting that boxing and other combat sports are) trained for 40 hours a week with maximal intensity, focus and consistency will destroy a far superior art trained for 3 hours a week (even with maximal intensity, etc…). Individual factors (such as size, strength, ability to take a punch, speed, agility, limb lengths, etc…) also have to be factored in as well of course.

That’s why we say that “People fight, not systems.”

In order to determine which art is “superior” (which I put in quotes because what might be superior for one context might not be for another), here is a little thought experiment:

Pick any fighter in history (could be a boxer, wrestler, Muay Thai fighter, BJJ fighter, MMA fighter, etc…) and clone them. For this experiment let’s pick Iron Mike Tyson (in his prime) since he was such a physical force before he got mixed up with Don King and started to self destruct. Now, have one Mike train only boxing and have the other train boxing, wrestling, BJJ, biting, nerve attacks, eye attacks, body handles, weapons, and synergizing them together. Both Mikes put in the same number of hours training as well as the same level of intensity (and let’s assume that all of their coaching is under good instructors, Cus is both of their boxing coaches for example). Now have them fight, no rules.

Which one do you think is likely going to win that fight 9 out of 10 times? Personally my money is on the more well rounded Mike. On the other hand, which is likely to win a boxing match? My money is on the one who only trained boxing (since he is more specialized in that area).

Good RMA’s are essentially what the second Mike in our above example is doing.

Interesting and thoughtful responses.

There are a lot of good points made. One point I failed miserably to make clear deals slightly with your hypothetical scenario, sentoguy. In my experience, and as I say, I have been fortunate enough to avoid a lot of the trouble that has been thrown in my direction, it is rare that you wont put someone down with a solid shot, bareknuckle, thrown to defend yourself when you have no choice but to fight. Nothing fancy, just a clean shot, untelegraphed, thrown when it is clear the other guy isnt going to let you walk away (ideally before the fucker has thrown his). So to take your example sentoguy, I dont think the Mike Tyson (A) who is trained in all those systems is necessarily at any advantage whatsoever, if the Mike Tyson (B) who just does boxing is someone who is prepared to hit (A) before (B) has realised it is a fight. A could be able to shoot lazer beams out of his eyes for all I care, if he is busy being aggressive/talking when B has decided to fight, then my money is on B 10/10, because in my opinion, someone who can punch, who is willing to do so, without wearing a glove, can bury just about anyone, even if they are considerably bigger.

This brings me to the other point that I failed to make clearly, because I was trying to be impersonal about it and not use myself as an example, for fear of sounding like a right twat. The point I was trying to suggest about the mentality of someone who sport fights, particularly in something like boxing where you know you are going to take some beatings and that is part of the sport, is similar to the one made by Miss Parker. Using myself as an example: I am a peaceful guy by and large, but I enjoy the shit out of boxing, and if I am forced to fight I will. I have done hundreds of hours of sparring, training, and a good few fights, and win or loose, if you make me, I will fight you. I’ve been doing it since I was 10, like most of the fighters in my gym, and while i’m no tough guy, I am no stranger to violence, even if it is predominantly in the ring, and I know I can deal with it, and indeed thrive in that environment. Someone who goes to Krav to get hard/learn to fight in self defence does not, in most cases, have the same luxury. I would back someone who trains to fight because they enjoy it over someone who trains to fight because they are afraid of being a victim, is the general point I am trying to make, but I think Irish and Miss Parker made it better than me.

[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
Interesting and thoughtful responses.

There are a lot of good points made. One point I failed miserably to make clear deals slightly with your hypothetical scenario, sentoguy. In my experience, and as I say, I have been fortunate enough to avoid a lot of the trouble that has been thrown in my direction, it is rare that you wont put someone down with a solid shot, bareknuckle, thrown to defend yourself when you have no choice but to fight. Nothing fancy, just a clean shot, untelegraphed, thrown when it is clear the other guy isnt going to let you walk away (ideally before the fucker has thrown his). So to take your example sentoguy, I dont think the Mike Tyson (A) who is trained in all those systems is necessarily at any advantage whatsoever, if the Mike Tyson (B) who just does boxing is someone who is prepared to hit (A) before (B) has realised it is a fight. A could be able to shoot lazer beams out of his eyes for all I care, if he is busy being aggressive/talking when B has decided to fight, then my money is on B 10/10, because in my opinion, someone who can punch, who is willing to do so, without wearing a glove, can bury just about anyone, even if they are considerably bigger.
[/quote]

Yes, he who hits first, hits hardest and hits the most usually will win 99% of the time. Either Mike could throw that punch in the above example though, so in that sense neither might be at an advantage.

Here’s the thing though:

  1. Whenever you are in a fight/self defense situation remember that it is very likely that you will have to defend yourself twice. First against the attacker’s physical assault, and second against an attacking legal system which will come after you for your actions.

While “ambush attacks/sucker punches/stop hits/interceptions” are fantastic from a tactical standpoint, they are not so great from a legal/moral standpoint. Anyone who saw the above scenario would tell the police when they showed up that the Mike who landed that first punch was the attacker and that Mike is probably going to jail (especially if the other Mike hit his head on the ground/hard surface and suffered serious head injury). That is not “defending yourself” in the eyes of the law unless there was prior verbal evidence to support punching Mike’s claims that he was doing so (like KO’d Mike saying, "I’m gonna smash your FUCKIN HEAD IN!!! balling up his fists and charging, which I think we can assume he wouldn’t do if he were training that amount of time). Therefore he might “win” the fight, but lose the war.

  1. RMA Mike (I’m just gonna separate them by training style to make it easier) has trained using weapons, has spent time learning about how many real fights start, has spent time developing his awareness and flinch reactions against surprise attacks. Boxing Mike is used to starting from one corner of a boxing ring (20+ feet from his opponent) and then slowly moving in, trying to measure his opponent’s timing, critical distance line, reactions, etc… He is also used to knowing when the attack is coming.

Therefore, RMA mike is going to be better prepared for the surprise attack than Boxing Mike, and he may utilize things like encumbrances (tables, chairs, curbs, carbs, etc…) to improve his time to react should Boxing Mike try to take a swing at him, or may utilize some form of “environmental weapon” (could be said encumbrance, could be the drink in his hand, could be the canister of pepper spray he’s got “cuffed” in his hand which he brings up in a “I don’t want any problems” manner right before spraying it in Boxing Mike’s eyes, etc…), back away and escape, gain access to an extended range weapon, or any number of potential positional or postural adjustments or verbal speech (which could go a long way towards him being able to avoid jail time later on) to try to give himself some sort of advantage or avoid/“win” the fight altogether. RMA Mike is also not likely to be busy “talking” or being aggressive because he knows that not allowing the fight to begin in the first place (and especially not starting one or escalating one) is the BEST way to “win” a fight.

The point is that fights start in all types of different ranges, orientations (some are straight on, some come from the side, some come from behind), environments, some begin with verbal dialogue, some without, etc…

When I said to have them fight, some people (possibly even yourself) may have automatically thought that meant two guys standing toe to toe up in each other’s face, chest puffing, jawing at each other, maybe some shoving thrown in, etc… as can be seen in pretty much any city around the US (and possibly some other countries as well) down at the local pub right around closing. I of course never said any such thing however, they just thought this because this is their paradigm of a “fight”. It is however, a very narrow view of how real fights occur and illustrates a lack of an RMA mindset and legal/moral understanding/training.

  1. Let’s even forgo the legal and moral aspects and put it into more of a MMA on steroids context (maybe like Thunder Dome of something like that) where we have both guys aware that they’re gonna fight but there are no rules. Boxing Mike really only has one skill set which he is proficient at (which he is very proficient at) and therefore must keep the fight within a very narrow context to allow him to take advantage of this skill set. RMA Mike however can fight pretty much no matter what context he finds himself at (yet is less specialized in any).

Now, Boxer Mike would probably still win a couple fights simply because he is so good at that one context, but RMA Mike is likely going to crush him in the majority of them since he has so many more options and skill sets available for him to choose from. And once it gets out of Boxing Mike’s comfort zone, he’s going to be at a huge disadvantage.

I do take your point Sentoguy, and you do make the case for RMA very well.

What I would say though, and I dont know where you’re from, is that boxing gyms in the UK are predominantly found in rough areas. Most of the kids in my gym are local and regularly exposed to violence outside the gym.

The things that I dont buy are that since RMA has trained in all these different systems, he is going to be more ready or better able to use weapons that are lying around. Assuming we are talking bar room brawls, i dont feel Boxing Mike is at a disadvantage there. I feel that people who train to fight, and stick at it over many years, generally have the instinct to fuck your shit up if you make them. Whether that be bottles, chairs, eyegouging or whatever. Also, since here at least boxing gyms aren’t in the nicest of places, most people I train with are pretty switched on when it comes to knowing how to set up suckerpunches, disguise weapons etc.

The legal argument is valid, but if someone blocks you escape/forces you to fight (even if they havent thrown a shot) then you will have a strong case for self defence. Here the law is that if you believe, in the circumstances, that your reaction was necessary, then that is what you must be judged on. Perhaps it is a more difficult burden of proof where you are. I would say though that round me, the police arent particularly intereted in getting involved. The majority of violent crimes round here get ignored. Even if the police do arrest you, I’d rather be ‘judged by twelve than carried by six’. That said, if you havent gone looking for trouble, and especially if you dont have a record, it is not that hard to get self defence as long as you dont do anything stupid, like choke someone out who is on the ground, or kerb stomp them.

The final point, which I agree with you on to an extent, is the reality of fighting like this. It is barely ever one on one, since the kind of people who start trouble arent interested in a fair fight. I agree that boxing doesnt teach you how to deal with that, and perhaps this is where my naivity to the merits of krav comes in. In my opinion though, from what I have seen and know of bad areas and bad people, is that if you are on your own and let yourself get into a physical confrontation with more than one person, you are fucked, regardless of what fighting style you know. The only way to win those fights is not to be in them, which involves running the fuck away before a gang gets anywhere near you, avoiding places you know they will be, etc. I dont think you need expensive classes for this, since it is pretty obvious and if you dont do it you’ll end up a victim whoever you are. The other variation is not to wind up people who will want you dead. Again, if you make trouble for yourself by winding up a gang member, they’ll find you and it’ll be on their terms. the only defence is to move area fast. I had a friend get his lung collapsed with a screwdriver a while back cos he said something stupid to someone he should have known not to piss off. he was jumped by a group of people. Tough, street smart kid, and I dont think there is any style of fighting, or anything you can ‘learn’ to protect yourself. kids who’ll stab you just to tell their mates they did it will win, always, but their is no reason to let anyone who looks like they might be the type anywhere near you. Again, I dont think a RMA gives you any special knowledge to protect yourself from this stuff.

[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
I do take your point Sentoguy, and you do make the case for RMA very well.

What I would say though, and I dont know where you’re from, is that boxing gyms in the UK are predominantly found in rough areas. Most of the kids in my gym are local and regularly exposed to violence outside the gym.
[/quote]

Boxing gyms are often found in rough areas in the US as well. Exposure to violence and being “street smart” are pretty regular for individuals who grow up in such places, regardless of what (if any) type of martial art (which I would include boxing) they train in.

Well, first both guys are essentially clones, so they would both be starting out with the same degree of street smarts to begin with.

In terms of utilizing expedient/environmental weapons (which my system classifies as anything in, on, or around you) actually yes, the RMA Mike would be at an advantage of how to use them. We address things like how to maximize the use of all types of weapons by categorizing them into “impact, flexible, projectile, edged and combination” types of weaponry. By focusing on the methodology/principles that make each type of weapon work/effective, you can pretty much extrapolate that to any type of weapon that falls under that category.

So, because I know how to generate both a maximum speed strike with an impact weapon and a maximum power strike with an impact weapon, it doesn’t really matter if I am using an Escrima stick (which you probably wouldn’t find lying around) or a chair leg, or a pool ball in my hand, a beer bottle, a pool cue, etc… As long as it does it’s damage by creating impact, then I know how to use it and what it’s disadvantages/limitations are.

The same is true with edged weapons (knives, broken glass, broken end of a pool cue, pens, screw driver, etc…), flexible weapons (garden hose, jump rope, extension cord, belt, hammer, etc…), projectile weapons (firearms, hot cup of coffee/tea, anything you can throw at the attacker to do damage, etc…), and combination weapons (less likely to find lying around but would include things like nunchaku, ball and chain, three sectional staff, flying guillotine, etc…).

And that’s not including things like structural environmental weapons like curbs, the ground, the edge of a counter, a brick wall, a set of stairs, a plate glass window, etc… that can be utilized to inflict damage to an opponent.

Again, like I said before with the punching/wrestling example, anyone could probably do damage with those weapons, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to be as effective with them as someone who truly understands the principles behind what makes them tick and how to maximize those physics/mechanics as well as how to neutralize those advantages.

Another factor that I think is worth mentioning is that the RMA Mike is also likely going to be actually training how to neutralize all of those weapons AND how to use them. Boxing Mike might have some success using them, but is probably going to have a much harder time figuring out how to defend against them in the heat of battle.

Well, legal precedent does change from place to place, so perhaps where you are just KO’ing someone who gets in your way when you try to leave would be justified. Here though, they pretty much have to have expressed the intent, ability and means to do you serious harm, and you need to be able to argue that you tried everything else first before launching a physical attack. There are of course exceptions, like if there is a huge disparity of force (there are 3 of them and 1 of you, you are a 100 lb woman and they are a 260 lb powerlifter, they have a weapon, etc…) but just an unarmed person who hasn’t demonstrated any physical threat to you yet would likely get you into some trouble if you just smashed them in the face.

In regards to the “judged by 12/carried by 6” argument, yeah, if it’s a life threatening situation (like multiples, weapons, huge physical disparity) then I agree that you should first worry about surviving and then worry about the morality of your actions. But if you are that type of situation, then you aren’t likely to be seen as the aggressor or agitator. The example you gave though was not a life threatening one and wouldn’t be seen as justifying that level of physical force (at least in my neck of the woods).

Much of what you said, knowing what areas to avoid, not to go around running your mouth/starting trouble, getting the heck out of dodge if you suspect trouble is on it’s way, will go a long way towards keeping you safe/alive. I am in complete agreement with you there.

In regards to the multiples perspective, actually there are tactics which do work on multiple attackers, but it’s true that it’s a worst case scenario, and most likely your only goal should be to survive long enough to be able to extricate yourself from the situation.

Finally, when it comes to someone attacking you with a weapon (as a weapon) who has no fear of the consequences, you are right that there is pretty much nothing that anyone can teach you to avoid this (short of maybe wearing body armor at all times, which isn’t very practical). Unless you know exactly who it is that’s going to attack you beforehand, there is just no way. Things like awareness, keeping a certain distance between you and others when walking down the street to give you more reaction time should they try to jump you, “slicing the pie” when you are rounding corners (even when just walking), always putting your back against a wall when eating at a restaurant, and other precautionary measures to give you the best chances of seeing a potential attack coming will go a long way towards keeping you “ambush proof”. But the reality is that for most of us, it is literally impossible to go our whole lives (some of us maybe even a full day) without violating at least 1 of the above rules and potentially leaving yourself open. Heck, most people couldn’t even go half a day while truly being aware of their surroundings.

All well presented counter arguments.

I still don’t quite share your perspective on use of weapons, since from what I have seen, but never been on the receiving end of, any clown can inflict enough damage with a weapon to end the fight. I have seen women with no formal training and no history of violence throw coffee in the face of some wanker who wouldnt leave them alone. I suppose I just feel that it is innate in humans to use tools, and to adapt to their use quickly.

I think what we may have ignored as well is that the person who reaches for a weapon first has escalated the conflict (barring vast disparities in size/numbers, as you mentioned). I am interested to hear what they teach you when they teach you how to use bottles etc effectively. Do they tell you to wait until you are attacked with a weapon, before you can block the attack, and come back with a weapon of your own? In my opinion, the person who is willing to stab you/glass you/hit you with a mace or other combination weapon, is always going to win the fight, barring a fuck up by them. The people willing to kill and spend their life in prison rather than loose a fight or walk away have such a huge advantage over everyone, however trained or dangerous, that I think all formal training is secondary. Will to win, and the willingness to kill before you stop fighting, is the closest you can come to guaranteeing your survival. That is why learning to walk away/avoid trouble in the first place is so important, and it is obviously the most useful element of krav.

I am also interested to know what kind of thing they teach you to deal with multiple attackers. You say there are tactics to fend them off/help you survive. I feel that these are likely only effective against a number of muppets, although i’m sure you can convince me otherwise. It seems though from what I know goes on round here, that if someone in a gang wants you to take a pasting the only way to avoid it is to strike preemptively (not always a guarantee of anything) or to move area.

Sento, I don’t think your analogy is a fair one.

To me, boxing is effective precisely because you don’t spend thousands of hours preparing for every single scenario in the book. It’s just those same six punches, a million times over.

When you start saying that Mike Tyson would train in a RBMA and do all kinds of other crap, you’re forgetting that that’s going to make “more well rounded” but a shittier boxer.

What you’re citing quickly turns into the classic bullshit thing of “Boxer vs. MMA guy” - MMA striking sucks ass, but they blame it on the fact that there’s so many more facets.

If you get a Tyson clone and have him do much less boxing, he’s not going to be the destructive force he was - he’ll be “Well rounded” but he’ll punch like one of those half assed MMA types.

And for the record - I’m not one of those guys who tries every move and says, “Hey it’s another tool for the tool box” - I think that’s the worst possible thing you can do. Keep it as simple as you can, because under stress, you don’t want your mind to be searching for what move to do. I don’t give a fuck about a “ground game” and I don’t give a fuck about being “well rounded.” Well rounded doesn’t win me fights, being vicious and brutal and hitting first wins me fights.

Me and you have very different ways of looking at this self defense idea I think.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Now, Boxer Mike would probably still win a couple fights simply because he is so good at that one context, but RMA Mike is likely going to crush him in the majority of them since he has so many more options and skill sets available for him to choose from. And once it gets out of Boxing Mike’s comfort zone, he’s going to be at a huge disadvantage.[/quote]

As the real Iron Mike said - everybody’s got a plan, until they get hit.

I don’t see many RBSD guys in streetfights. Maybe that’s because they’re older and smarter and stay out of them.

But I would still take a good boxer (or wrestler) any day over anyone who trains in nearly any RBSD system.

Ye, I think Irish and I are sort of on the same page here. I like your point about it becoming a boxer v mma analogy, and I agree.

In my opinion, what has won me the fights I’ve found myself in has been hitting harder and faster, on a straighter line than the guy who has made me fight. That, raw aggression and the ability to instinctivly move my head once i’m in range, before and after punching, has been all that it has taken to win convincingly. Were I to find myself one guy against many, which I fortunately havent since I was a lot younger, if I couldnt run, I’d be expecting a beating, inspite of my mad skillz. Unfortunately round me, hitting the biggest guy is just a cue for a smaller guy to stab you. Noone is going to run :(.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sento, I don’t think your analogy is a fair one.

To me, boxing is effective precisely because you don’t spend thousands of hours preparing for every single scenario in the book. It’s just those same six punches, a million times over.

When you start saying that Mike Tyson would train in a RBMA and do all kinds of other crap, you’re forgetting that that’s going to make “more well rounded” but a shittier boxer.

What you’re citing quickly turns into the classic bullshit thing of “Boxer vs. MMA guy” - MMA striking sucks ass, but they blame it on the fact that there’s so many more facets.

If you get a Tyson clone and have him do much less boxing, he’s not going to be the destructive force he was - he’ll be “Well rounded” but he’ll punch like one of those half assed MMA types.

And for the record - I’m not one of those guys who tries every move and says, “Hey it’s another tool for the tool box” - I think that’s the worst possible thing you can do. Keep it as simple as you can, because under stress, you don’t want your mind to be searching for what move to do. I don’t give a fuck about a “ground game” and I don’t give a fuck about being “well rounded.” Well rounded doesn’t win me fights, being vicious and brutal and hitting first wins me fights.

Me and you have very different ways of looking at this self defense idea I think.[/quote]

Honestly I think you’re both on the same page. Look at it this way. If you’re in an altercation and somehow get tackled and end up on the floor with a guy on top of you, how well prepped will you be to handle that? Going back to the RMA/Boxing Tysons, RMA Mike would probably handle it better than Boxing Mike, if only because hip-escaping out from under a guy is something he’s done countless times, while his clone hasn’t (remember, we’re talking about guys with identical personalities/instincts). RMA Mike might not handle it as well as a lifelong Judoka or BJJ guy, but his odds are better.

Similarly, in some altercation with his twin, yes he has more options (more ‘tools’ as you say). Doesn’t mean his brother can’t starch him of course, that would depend how crappy his… RMA striking is (lol), and the myriad of circumstances that surround the encounter, but he has a clinch, or a double-leg. He’ll be better prepared if the two of them trip over a chair or something.

From a BJJ guy’s perspective… I’ve rolled with Krav guys (serious multiyear practitioners), and they’ve all sucked for the years they’ve put in (I’m a 2.5yr blue as reference). If I encountered these guys outside a bar, yes I’d be fine if we hit the floor, but I can’t confidently say I’d be able to ‘win’ otherwise.

The disconnect in that analogy of course is “Most fights start on the feet with punches.” So you have a point there.

[quote]rundymc wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sento, I don’t think your analogy is a fair one.

To me, boxing is effective precisely because you don’t spend thousands of hours preparing for every single scenario in the book. It’s just those same six punches, a million times over.

When you start saying that Mike Tyson would train in a RBMA and do all kinds of other crap, you’re forgetting that that’s going to make “more well rounded” but a shittier boxer.

What you’re citing quickly turns into the classic bullshit thing of “Boxer vs. MMA guy” - MMA striking sucks ass, but they blame it on the fact that there’s so many more facets.

If you get a Tyson clone and have him do much less boxing, he’s not going to be the destructive force he was - he’ll be “Well rounded” but he’ll punch like one of those half assed MMA types.

And for the record - I’m not one of those guys who tries every move and says, “Hey it’s another tool for the tool box” - I think that’s the worst possible thing you can do. Keep it as simple as you can, because under stress, you don’t want your mind to be searching for what move to do. I don’t give a fuck about a “ground game” and I don’t give a fuck about being “well rounded.” Well rounded doesn’t win me fights, being vicious and brutal and hitting first wins me fights.

Me and you have very different ways of looking at this self defense idea I think.[/quote]

Honestly I think you’re both on the same page. Look at it this way. If you’re in an altercation and somehow get tackled and end up on the floor with a guy on top of you, how well prepped will you be to handle that? Going back to the RMA/Boxing Tysons, RMA Mike would probably handle it better than Boxing Mike, if only because hip-escaping out from under a guy is something he’s done countless times, while his clone hasn’t (remember, we’re talking about guys with identical personalities/instincts). RMA Mike might not handle it as well as a lifelong Judoka or BJJ guy, but his odds are better.

Similarly, in some altercation with his twin, yes he has more options (more ‘tools’ as you say). Doesn’t mean his brother can’t starch him of course, that would depend how crappy his… RMA striking is (lol), and the myriad of circumstances that surround the encounter, but he has a clinch, or a double-leg. He’ll be better prepared if the two of them trip over a chair or something.

From a BJJ guy’s perspective… I’ve rolled with Krav guys (serious multiyear practitioners), and they’ve all sucked for the years they’ve put in (I’m a 2.5yr blue as reference). If I encountered these guys outside a bar, yes I’d be fine if we hit the floor, but I can’t confidently say I’d be able to ‘win’ otherwise.

The disconnect in that analogy of course is “Most fights start on the feet with punches.” So you have a point there.

[/quote]

I think that too many people get in the habit of addressing street violence - which is what we’re talking about here - as if it were some face off between two opponents. It isn’t.

You’re probably drunk, it’s probably at a bar, the size of who you’re fighting can vary wildly to the point where a guy like me could get involved with some twice his size, and that’s even if you get to face off with the guy, which you probably won’t.

There’s going to be weapons involved and friends and kicks in the head and you’ll be on the ground and you don’t know how you ended up there and all of a sudden someone’s grabbed your ear (yea, your ear) and they’re trying to rip off while you’re trying to get some other guy off your buddy… it’s hellish and chaotic, and yea, I don’t know dick about most reality based martial arts or systems or whatever but the simplest, most street effective thing there is is the system that follows the rules of 1) staying on your feet 2) punching hard and in a straight line 3) Not getting punched and 4) booking it as soon you can.

In my opinion there’s few ways to replicate a real fight. You’re either fighting or you’re not.

Like I said, even now, we’re getting into a discussion about RBSD Mike Tyson vs. boxer Mike Tyson which is ridiculous in itself because as soon as you’ve got them “squaring off” against each other, you’re getting away from what RBSD’s premise is, which is self defense, not fighting.

Who really wins in that competition? The Mike Tyson who hit first, the MIke Tyson with the knife, the Mike Tyson with the friend who hits you with a bat before you even get near him. Who fucking knows.

But the idea of “more tools in a toolbox” isn’t going to mean that one beats the other… it’s the street man. It’s nearly a total tossup every time you get into it.

Good points, my post does seem to wander off into ‘face-off’ territory. But it’s precisely because it’s a tossup that I think branching out into different disciplines can help.

That said, rereading your posts, I think I get where you’re coming from. If you’re average (or just plain crap) at every area of combat, because you spread yourself thin over everything, you’re not going to be as effective than if you picked one area and focused on it. I totally agree with that. Hell you see this in MMA as well: the best fighters are great to world class at one-two things, and good-crap at the rest.

[quote]rundymc wrote:
Good points, my post does seem to wander off into ‘face-off’ territory. But it’s precisely because it’s a tossup that I think branching out into different disciplines can help.

That said, rereading your posts, I think I get where you’re coming from. If you’re average (or just plain crap) at every area of combat, because you spread yourself thin over everything, you’re not going to be as effective than if you picked one area and focused on it. I totally agree with that. Hell you see this in MMA as well: the best fighters are great to world class at one-two things, and good-crap at the rest.[/quote]

Right. And in the ring, though, you can cover that kind of shit up - you’re not good at striking, so you grapple more, you suck at subs so you work it so you don’t hit the ground as much. You’ve got time to think your way through it, to work it out as you go.

In a real fight, especially involving many people, everything is utterly chaotic. There’s absolutely no time to think about what you’re doing, to use any kind of strategy - all you know is how to react, and how you react is going to depend on how much you put into your art.

And like I said, while I think that to some degree ANY art can be absorbed that well, the ones you’re MOST OFTEN going to see “Owned” by the practitioner (not understood, not known, but really “owned”) are going to be the ones where you did that same simple shit over and over and over to the point where it’s instinct.

All good points guys.

I’ve been grabbed by the ear on the floor before, and it hurt like you wouldnt believe. Needless to say, I took a pasting while I was down there, despite there being a few of my mates against a few other lads who decided to cut up rough. fortunately it all got broken up before I got my head stomped in. Being on the floor, whatever you know, is not a place to be, and in a street fight will always leave you reliant on chance. For me, it was the bouncers arriving in time to pull everything apart. Also, although i’ve rarely been on the floor outside the playground, i would say that a hip escape is the last thing on my mind. I’m going to go for the throat or eyes every day of the week, no hesitation, not much technique, but raw aggression. Maybe it is because i’m untrained at being in such a position, but my instinct is to deal with the fucker on top of me while trying to protect my head. Ultimately though, the floor is a loosing position, which is another reason I favour clean sharp striking, and then buggering off quickly, before anyone else can get their hands on you.

[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
All good points guys.

I’ve been grabbed by the ear on the floor before, and it hurt like you wouldnt believe. Needless to say, I took a pasting while I was down there, despite there being a few of my mates against a few other lads who decided to cut up rough. fortunately it all got broken up before I got my head stomped in. Being on the floor, whatever you know, is not a place to be, and in a street fight will always leave you reliant on chance. For me, it was the bouncers arriving in time to pull everything apart. Also, although i’ve rarely been on the floor outside the playground, i would say that a hip escape is the last thing on my mind. I’m going to go for the throat or eyes every day of the week, no hesitation, not much technique, but raw aggression. Maybe it is because i’m untrained at being in such a position, but my instinct is to deal with the fucker on top of me while trying to protect my head. Ultimately though, the floor is a loosing position, which is another reason I favour clean sharp striking, and then buggering off quickly, before anyone else can get their hands on you. [/quote]

haha hell yea man.

I got saved once because my best friend, rest the dude’s soul, saw me on the bottom of a pile during a brawl and literally threw everyone off of me, grabbed me by the scruff of the neck, and dragged me from the fray.

He was a big guy, and he broke my balls about that forever, told me when he pulled everyone off of me it was like I was seeing the sun for the first time haha.

IMHO, it’s overrated.

Theres a tendency in a lot of circles to think anything Israeli is tits. I’m sure the IDF shits better than any armed force on the entire planet as well.

Personally, Cambo and Sysytema has worked best for me.

[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
I do take your point Sentoguy, and you do make the case for RMA very well.

What I would say though, and I dont know where you’re from, is that boxing gyms in the UK are predominantly found in rough areas. Most of the kids in my gym are local and regularly exposed to violence outside the gym.

The things that I dont buy are that since RMA has trained in all these different systems, he is going to be more ready or better able to use weapons that are lying around. Assuming we are talking bar room brawls, i dont feel Boxing Mike is at a disadvantage there. I feel that people who train to fight, and stick at it over many years, generally have the instinct to fuck your shit up if you make them. Whether that be bottles, chairs, eyegouging or whatever. Also, since here at least boxing gyms aren’t in the nicest of places, most people I train with are pretty switched on when it comes to knowing how to set up suckerpunches, disguise weapons etc.

The legal argument is valid, but if someone blocks you escape/forces you to fight (even if they havent thrown a shot) then you will have a strong case for self defence. Here the law is that if you believe, in the circumstances, that your reaction was necessary, then that is what you must be judged on. Perhaps it is a more difficult burden of proof where you are. I would say though that round me, the police arent particularly intereted in getting involved. The majority of violent crimes round here get ignored. Even if the police do arrest you, I’d rather be ‘judged by twelve than carried by six’. That said, if you havent gone looking for trouble, and especially if you dont have a record, it is not that hard to get self defence as long as you dont do anything stupid, like choke someone out who is on the ground, or kerb stomp them.

The final point, which I agree with you on to an extent, is the reality of fighting like this. It is barely ever one on one, since the kind of people who start trouble arent interested in a fair fight. I agree that boxing doesnt teach you how to deal with that, and perhaps this is where my naivity to the merits of krav comes in. In my opinion though, from what I have seen and know of bad areas and bad people, is that if you are on your own and let yourself get into a physical confrontation with more than one person, you are fucked, regardless of what fighting style you know. The only way to win those fights is not to be in them, which involves running the fuck away before a gang gets anywhere near you, avoiding places you know they will be, etc. I dont think you need expensive classes for this, since it is pretty obvious and if you dont do it you’ll end up a victim whoever you are. The other variation is not to wind up people who will want you dead. Again, if you make trouble for yourself by winding up a gang member, they’ll find you and it’ll be on their terms. the only defence is to move area fast. I had a friend get his lung collapsed with a screwdriver a while back cos he said something stupid to someone he should have known not to piss off. he was jumped by a group of people. Tough, street smart kid, and I dont think there is any style of fighting, or anything you can ‘learn’ to protect yourself. kids who’ll stab you just to tell their mates they did it will win, always, but their is no reason to let anyone who looks like they might be the type anywhere near you. Again, I dont think a RMA gives you any special knowledge to protect yourself from this stuff.

[/quote]

The only thing I’ll really disagree with here is that people don’t need to be taught about paying attention to your surroundings, avoidance, escape, etc. Stuff that most of us would consider common sense is not a part of most people’s thought process. I think the fact that you grew up fighting since you were 10 & have trained in boxing gyms for many years provided that education for you, but most people are astonishingly naive, which is how they are victimized. My stepdad took it upon himself to make sure I knew about that stuff, but that is rare.

Regarding legal stuff, in the U.S. it’s state-by-state. Here in Texas the laws about self-defense are much more lenient than in most parts of the country. We are not required to flee before defending ourselves, we just have to believe (and be able to convince a jury of our peers ) ourselves, our property, or another person is in danger. If it’s another person’s property, its more of a gray area & we’re definitely not supposed to kill anyone to protect another person’s property. I have actually been told several tales by cop friends of times they opted not to arrest somebody who beat someone else up, because the guy who got beaten “deserved it for being an asshole”. You can’t count on that, though, best just the get the hell out of there if trouble’s brewing.