5 ms·

>Krav Maga is the martial art that I've always thought of as actually useful for self-defense i'm not big on martial arts or even mma but for some reason i've

>Krav Maga is the martial art that I've always thought of as actually useful for self-defense i'm not big on martial arts or even mma but for some reason i've seen this argument in various places often enough that i've also seen the appropriate response: if that were true then all of the most successful mma fighters would be krav maga experts. in actuality not a single one practices krav maga. the proof is in the pudding.

askvictor 5y ago
I'm similarly not into MMA, but I wouldn't think it's a good system to determine real-world performance of a martial art. Most people aren't going to be pitted against high-level fighters in a ring; they'll be out on the street. It comes down to why you're learning the martial art, and to some degree, what your threat model is.
GloriousKoji 5y ago
Maybe because MMA is a sport and not an actual life or death combat? I'm sure if they allowed things like throat jabs, eye stabs, crotch shots and immediate joint dislocation upon grapple we'd see a lot more krav maga techniques.
- Silhouette 5y ago
  This is a popular argument but it doesn't work if you think about it for a while. Put a good striker in a fight with someone who isn't a good striker. The skilled fighter would evade most of what the unskilled fighter threw at them. There isn't even much need for blocking and covering if most of what is coming at you isn't making significant contact in the first place. Now take out the rules. If the unskilled fighter couldn't land a punch on the skilled fighter before, why would you expect them to suddenly be able to land an extremely precise strike to a vulnerable area now? And why wouldn't the skilled fighter also be able to do the same but better since they still have more power and accuracy and the unskilled fighter still has weaker defence? It's the same with grappling. It's true that a joint lock can be devastating and that's why we usually disallow most of them in combat sports, but to be applied reliably you need some control over the area around the joint. Put a good grappler in a fight with someone who isn't a good grappler. The good grappler is going to control the position better. Now take out the rules. If the unskilled fighter couldn't get a good position to control the skilled fighter before, why would you expect them to suddenly be able to apply an effective joint lock now? And why wouldn't the skilled fighter also be able to do the same but better since they still have a better position to work from and the unskilled fighter still has weaker defence? MMA is a sport and an MMA match isn't like a "real" fight for all kinds of reasons but simple, efficient, effective techniques such as you see in MMA matches are a good foundation for "real" fighting too, even if you might choose to add other types of training as well for use outside the controlled environment.
  - harimau777 5y ago
    A traditional martial artist who has seriously trained in sparring would also be able to deal with an unskilled fighter fairly easily. The difficulty arises when the rules of a sport cause a fighter to ignore situations that can arise in an actual fight. For example, I train in Dog Brothers Martial Arts. Grappling is common and encouraged, but at the same time most fighters conceal training knives on their person and headbutts are common. That requires an adapted form of BJJ from that used in MMA. Overhooks become more valuable because they allow you to control a limb that is holding a weapon. When you are in the bottom of guard you need to keep your opponent away from you so that they can't headbutt you.
    - Silhouette 5y ago
      Yes, this is the sort of distinction I had in mind when I commented before that MMA is still a sport and for "real" fighting you might choose to add other types of training as well. The possible presence of weapons is one huge difference. The open environment where you don't have an octagon wall to limit your opponent's movement and a conveniently flat floor is another.
  - tradesmanhelix 5y ago
    I'm having trouble following your reasoning. It seems predicated on the assumption that Krav makes you a less skilled/unskilled striker/grappler when compared to say MMA or others, but I don't see any reason why this would be the case? That aside, the main thrust of your argument seems to be, "If you can't land a non-lethal blow, then there's little or no chance of your landing a lethal blow." I don't think anyone disagrees with that. I think the disconnect is that once again your argument comes down to, "Krav automatically makes you less skilled than _______ (insert style here) and thus unable/unlikely to land any attacks." But, once again, I don't think that follows unless there's a provable weakness/deficiency with Krav itself and/or you really do have a BJJ black belt vs. a level 1 Krav student, in which case I don't think anyone is going to disagree about the outcome. Anyone who practices Krav on a regular basis and learns the techniques well can become a skilled striker, grappler, etc., in which case they will have an advantage over a straight MMA fighter of the same level simply because the Krav practitioner will be trained in very harmful attacks that MMA disallows (i.e., groin shots, eye attacks, etc.).
golemiprague 5y ago
Krav maga focus on teaching effective and intuitive combat technics to people who are not going to spend too much time in the dojo and are going to be involved in situations where there there are no rules and usually involves more than one person as well as all kind of weapons, from stones to guns. To fight in an MMA fight you need to put a lot of training into standard boxing, kicking and grappling technics, which a lot of serious krav maga practitioners learn also anyway. It is just that it is not intended for the same purposes.
slavak 5y ago
Krav Maga minus the parts that are illegal or irrelevant to UFC basically _is_ MMA, which is unsurprising since the whole concept of the method since its inception in the 1940s is to collect effective and intuitive techniques from any martial art you can find. (Sort of a _mix_ of different martial arts, one might say...) There's at least one successful mixed martial artist with a Krav Maga background (Karolina Kowalkiewicz, UKM Expert level 2), but she's definitely an outlier rather than the rule. Krav Maga tries to be a no-rules self-defense method that can be trained in as little time as possible. If your aim is to be a high-level competitor in a specific sport, and you have the required time and athletic ability to train appropriately, then your best bet is to skip the middleman and train in that sport directly.
tradesmanhelix 5y ago
Krav is widely taught to armed/special forces and law enforcement, who absolutely need a style that works in the "real world." To me, this speaks volumes more about its practicality and real world efficacy than its use by tournament/competition fighters. Additionally, Krav has no competitive/tournament side to it, unlike most other martial arts. According to my Krav instructor, this is because the minute you add this aspect to a style, you then need rules around what is and isn't allowed. This goes against the core philosophy of Krav, which is "win the fight and get back home alive by any means necessary." It's about survival, and when fighting for survival you can't impose rules around what is and isn't allowed. Much of what Krav focuses on (i.e., elbows, knees, groin/face attacks, etc.) isn't allowed in competitive fighting, so why would a professional fighter spend their time learning a style that they can only use say 50% of? Much better to learn something that was created with tournaments/competition in mind, where you can use 100% of what you learn, which is what I think most (all?) of them do. So I don't think the "very few/no professional fighters learn Krav so it's no good" argument holds up, because 1) professional fighters would be wasting a lot of time learning Krav if professional fighting is their goal and 2) its widely used by many organizations outside professional/tournament fighting who arguably have an even greater need than professional fighters do for an effective self-defense methodology.
- Silhouette 5y ago
  Krav is widely taught to armed/special forces and law enforcement, who absolutely need a style that works in the "real world." Law enforcement have very little need for street fighting. If things are getting physical, the job is usually to detain a suspect as safely as possible. It's unlikely that the rules of engagement will allow causing the suspect severe harm or death, and if a LEO really is in that kind of situation, their priority is probably going to be disengaging and either transitioning to a weapon or deploying some sort of protective and restraint gear as quickly as possible. Additionally, Krav has no competitive/tournament side to it, unlike most other martial arts. The trouble with all martial arts that don't have any focus on competitive training is that you can never be sure they actually work unless you're in the rare position of having to use them for real and finding out the hard way. If you have ever been in that position then you have my greatest sympathy because the result is usually horrible whether or not you "win".

askvictor 5y ago

I'm similarly not into MMA, but I wouldn't think it's a good system to determine real-world performance of a martial art. Most people aren't going to be pitted against high-level fighters in a ring; they'll be out on the street. It comes down to why you're learning the martial art, and to some degree, what your threat model is.

GloriousKoji 5y ago

Maybe because MMA is a sport and not an actual life or death combat? I'm sure if they allowed things like throat jabs, eye stabs, crotch shots and immediate joint dislocation upon grapple we'd see a lot more krav maga techniques.

Silhouette 5y ago
This is a popular argument but it doesn't work if you think about it for a while. Put a good striker in a fight with someone who isn't a good striker. The skilled fighter would evade most of what the unskilled fighter threw at them. There isn't even much need for blocking and covering if most of what is coming at you isn't making significant contact in the first place. Now take out the rules. If the unskilled fighter couldn't land a punch on the skilled fighter before, why would you expect them to suddenly be able to land an extremely precise strike to a vulnerable area now? And why wouldn't the skilled fighter also be able to do the same but better since they still have more power and accuracy and the unskilled fighter still has weaker defence? It's the same with grappling. It's true that a joint lock can be devastating and that's why we usually disallow most of them in combat sports, but to be applied reliably you need some control over the area around the joint. Put a good grappler in a fight with someone who isn't a good grappler. The good grappler is going to control the position better. Now take out the rules. If the unskilled fighter couldn't get a good position to control the skilled fighter before, why would you expect them to suddenly be able to apply an effective joint lock now? And why wouldn't the skilled fighter also be able to do the same but better since they still have a better position to work from and the unskilled fighter still has weaker defence? MMA is a sport and an MMA match isn't like a "real" fight for all kinds of reasons but simple, efficient, effective techniques such as you see in MMA matches are a good foundation for "real" fighting too, even if you might choose to add other types of training as well for use outside the controlled environment.
- harimau777 5y ago
  A traditional martial artist who has seriously trained in sparring would also be able to deal with an unskilled fighter fairly easily. The difficulty arises when the rules of a sport cause a fighter to ignore situations that can arise in an actual fight. For example, I train in Dog Brothers Martial Arts. Grappling is common and encouraged, but at the same time most fighters conceal training knives on their person and headbutts are common. That requires an adapted form of BJJ from that used in MMA. Overhooks become more valuable because they allow you to control a limb that is holding a weapon. When you are in the bottom of guard you need to keep your opponent away from you so that they can't headbutt you.
  - Silhouette 5y ago
    Yes, this is the sort of distinction I had in mind when I commented before that MMA is still a sport and for "real" fighting you might choose to add other types of training as well. The possible presence of weapons is one huge difference. The open environment where you don't have an octagon wall to limit your opponent's movement and a conveniently flat floor is another.
- tradesmanhelix 5y ago
  I'm having trouble following your reasoning. It seems predicated on the assumption that Krav makes you a less skilled/unskilled striker/grappler when compared to say MMA or others, but I don't see any reason why this would be the case? That aside, the main thrust of your argument seems to be, "If you can't land a non-lethal blow, then there's little or no chance of your landing a lethal blow." I don't think anyone disagrees with that. I think the disconnect is that once again your argument comes down to, "Krav automatically makes you less skilled than _______ (insert style here) and thus unable/unlikely to land any attacks." But, once again, I don't think that follows unless there's a provable weakness/deficiency with Krav itself and/or you really do have a BJJ black belt vs. a level 1 Krav student, in which case I don't think anyone is going to disagree about the outcome. Anyone who practices Krav on a regular basis and learns the techniques well can become a skilled striker, grappler, etc., in which case they will have an advantage over a straight MMA fighter of the same level simply because the Krav practitioner will be trained in very harmful attacks that MMA disallows (i.e., groin shots, eye attacks, etc.).

golemiprague 5y ago

Krav maga focus on teaching effective and intuitive combat technics to people who are not going to spend too much time in the dojo and are going to be involved in situations where there there are no rules and usually involves more than one person as well as all kind of weapons, from stones to guns. To fight in an MMA fight you need to put a lot of training into standard boxing, kicking and grappling technics, which a lot of serious krav maga practitioners learn also anyway. It is just that it is not intended for the same purposes.

slavak 5y ago

Krav Maga minus the parts that are illegal or irrelevant to UFC basically _is_ MMA, which is unsurprising since the whole concept of the method since its inception in the 1940s is to collect effective and intuitive techniques from any martial art you can find. (Sort of a _mix_ of different martial arts, one might say...) There's at least one successful mixed martial artist with a Krav Maga background (Karolina Kowalkiewicz, UKM Expert level 2), but she's definitely an outlier rather than the rule. Krav Maga tries to be a no-rules self-defense method that can be trained in as little time as possible. If your aim is to be a high-level competitor in a specific sport, and you have the required time and athletic ability to train appropriately, then your best bet is to skip the middleman and train in that sport directly.

tradesmanhelix 5y ago

Krav is widely taught to armed/special forces and law enforcement, who absolutely need a style that works in the "real world." To me, this speaks volumes more about its practicality and real world efficacy than its use by tournament/competition fighters. Additionally, Krav has no competitive/tournament side to it, unlike most other martial arts. According to my Krav instructor, this is because the minute you add this aspect to a style, you then need rules around what is and isn't allowed. This goes against the core philosophy of Krav, which is "win the fight and get back home alive by any means necessary." It's about survival, and when fighting for survival you can't impose rules around what is and isn't allowed. Much of what Krav focuses on (i.e., elbows, knees, groin/face attacks, etc.) isn't allowed in competitive fighting, so why would a professional fighter spend their time learning a style that they can only use say 50% of? Much better to learn something that was created with tournaments/competition in mind, where you can use 100% of what you learn, which is what I think most (all?) of them do. So I don't think the "very few/no professional fighters learn Krav so it's no good" argument holds up, because 1) professional fighters would be wasting a lot of time learning Krav if professional fighting is their goal and 2) its widely used by many organizations outside professional/tournament fighting who arguably have an even greater need than professional fighters do for an effective self-defense methodology.

Silhouette 5y ago
Krav is widely taught to armed/special forces and law enforcement, who absolutely need a style that works in the "real world." Law enforcement have very little need for street fighting. If things are getting physical, the job is usually to detain a suspect as safely as possible. It's unlikely that the rules of engagement will allow causing the suspect severe harm or death, and if a LEO really is in that kind of situation, their priority is probably going to be disengaging and either transitioning to a weapon or deploying some sort of protective and restraint gear as quickly as possible. Additionally, Krav has no competitive/tournament side to it, unlike most other martial arts. The trouble with all martial arts that don't have any focus on competitive training is that you can never be sure they actually work unless you're in the rare position of having to use them for real and finding out the hard way. If you have ever been in that position then you have my greatest sympathy because the result is usually horrible whether or not you "win".