KM faster to learn?

quick fix? yes i guess it is if you mean it in that context. i have done wing chun, hung fut kung fu, aikido, muay thai, boxing and some seminars for other styles, why do you ask? as for high rep exercises, it would depend on the person, but after a lesson, i believe i can walk out feeling competent that if the need arised, i would be able to uses the technique, although i forget to mention, many things tought have more to do with environmental training and awareness, such as... i can use this pencil to kill a man if the need arises, and i can do it by striking these vital areas, as i have just been tought... or, how am i going to fight in a corner? by training in the corner... At the few karate dojo's i have trained at, i did not personally like what they tought and left quickly, not because i believed the info was obsolete, but the delivery of the information. why do street fighters win fights? they dont do any formal martial arts (well, some might) but lash out aty you, and as such, i have seen many MA lose in fights against them... so ... Uh, Yes.. i dont do palm strikes 10,000 times in an hour either, i used that as an example of an effective technique thats benifits were outlined to me in a scientific fashiom. such as 1) you wont break knuckles or wrists, 2) it is more socially acceptable to onlookers if you arent just 'punching thier brains out' 3) you can palmstrike a brick wall all day, but if you did it with a punch, you would quickly give up in preferance to palm strike, 4) palm strikes require no formal training as to wrist alighnment, so there is less chance of sustaining an injury for beginners, and there is more overall biometric stability, resulting in greater power. as for high reps, not all systems do utilize them, such as some grappling sports, as it would be impracticles to try and do an armbar/takedown 10 thousand times in an hour. when i say learn to the above mentioned martial arts i refer to basic training to advanced training and have put alot of hours into this. As for resisting opponents, we do full contact sparring, and i have easily been able to effectively utilise a technique learnt on the day, hope it answers all your questions, although i dont know why we are making this about me, as all i was doing was answering your question according to my opinion

Didn't mean anything personal. Sorry if I came off that way. When someone says they've learned various arts I question them.Considering it takes many years to learn an art.
Who says streetfighters win fights against true martial artist? They may win against sport oriented versions who give the misconception that they are learning self defense.
Lots of styles use the palm strike. I like it.
I just think anyone could learn just as much in any other style with the proper training.
I also think when you bypass all the basics in a style to get down to the nitty gritty you end up with poor technique and basically a brawler.You need a good foundation to start with.

i agree, but many styles these days (im not sure if for money, or mainly because they do require a degree of mastery) say you must r=train for so many years bfore acheiving something, and may spend time instilling morals, philosophys and ideas in your head, which i agree is important, whereas because in KM the main focus is self defence, they may not incoperate this into learning, freeing up time for other things. My experiences of street fighters beating up MA is personal, and do not wish to convey that that is always the case, it just has been for the majority of fights ive seen.. please note, MA who have had experience in street fights fare better than anyone, as would be expected. i dont actually do KM, so please realise that my veiws towards it were made in un biased light, just merely that the style i do which is like KM is, in my personal beliefs, one of the most immediatly effective styles i have learnt, mainly because it tries to adress street confrontation issues, whereas many traditional MA may not. as for a good foundation, that is the problem with KM, it only uses basics, but that is why it is easy to learn. As for 'learning' a martial art, it depends what this word means personally means to you. whould you consider learning the process of becoming adept at something as part of a whole (eg. being able to take off or land, as a pilot must) or learning the thing as a whole (being able to land, fly, takeoff and access problems while in the air) this is just an example, but do you consider been able to defend against an attacker with success (as you may be able to learn in KM) or absolutly win a.k.a. flawless victory? if you go out to learn a style, depending on what you are looking for, you may, or may not. i believe KM try to teach you things that you will be able to use, but it does not neccesarily mean you will have mastered them. another example would be someone with a knife. they can senselessly stab you, as it will still work, but many people train in knife fighting in a hope to learn where, how and why they should satb you in that manner. i use this as an example only, but think that it shows you my arguement of learning how to do something, as opposed to why you may do it in that manner, or when you should do it. sorry if its a bit long, and everyone is entitled to their veiws, but i hope you understand what im trying to say, not that im just saying it. Also, many schools say it takes years to become profecient in a style. i have seen people who have trained three times a week and have gained 'black belts' in under 6 years (not that i believe that means this person is a master an=t the style) but have seen other people train four hours a day every day of the year, and have been training for well over 6 years and have still not attained that rank, yet many believe this means that because the first example has a blackbelt, he is better versed at fighting that the second example. if you trained for four hours a day for one year, you would have trained far more than SOME blackbelts, and would probably be incredibly proficient in your style. your training may equal that of someone who has 'years' of training, so SANCHIN31, please think about this next time you say it takes 'years' to master something, and think more along the terms of it takes many hundreds of hours to learn something

That's a good point.It's the amount of actual training time you put in,not how long it's been since you started.As for blackbelts,it's different at every school.A blackbelt just means you're a good student.
To say you know or learn something means every aspect of it to me. I can say I "know" how to punch,but unless I can apply a proper punch to a resisting opponent where I intend I really don't "know" it.

krav maga has a few advantages in terms of time it takes to learn

1. it is extremly no nonsense - there are thngs that you teach beginers in other martial arts that are not actually used, but give a base for things that you will learn later. there is very little like this in krav maga. the moves you learn are all basic, simple and practical

2. krav maga training is all as real as possible. you don't have black belts who have never realy sparred, because in your first few lessons you will get pysical, and you will keep it up.

3. there is nothing fancy - it is a few basic moves, a few basic targets, no high kicks, no fancy joint work, etc. the idea is to teach people to take down a threat fast and simple.

4. there is nothing spiritual or mystical about krav maga - it is engineering, not art. you are tought an attitude about how to bring force into play, in order to end threats. you won't see anybody learning how to to a sword kata, but you will see people learning how to hit with a fire extinguisher.


I studied krav maga for 2 course, almost 20 years ago. one course was 2 weeks long, and the other was 6 weeks long, but wasn't just focused on krav maga. I still remember a hell of a lot that was tought me there, and when I spar, I use that more than the style that I study now.

Making blanket statements comparing styles is a dangerous game is is more often then not only going to lead to examples of why the comparison is false. However in this case I would support the statement that Krav in its essence is faster to learn based solely on the fact that it is distilled down to a few basics.

In the two years that I have been training in Krav we primarily work on three kicks plus knee strikes. Compare this to the number of kicks that I learned and practiced in TKD and in Wah Lum Kung Fu. In Wah Lum we had a kata that was called "the eight kicks" and that covered the basic kicks. So if I spend the same time practicing three kicks or eight kicks, which will I develop proficiency in faster???

The same can be said of hand strikes...

Of course maybe eight different kicks gives you more options, but the theory in Krav is not to bog down with options but to "get it on".

The other thing to keep in mind is that different schools are going to teach an art different ways. I personally believe the training method is more important than the art. I have only trained Krav in one place so I don't have a wide perspective on how the art is trained. However, from the comments made by visitors, we tend to training more on contact than other places. Even within the Krav umbrella you are going to find good and bad!

Chris

if you remember a lot of the moves from krav maga why don't you go for moderator?

I didn't know it was being offered. what do I have to do?

Several things to remember about the military in regards to H2H training:

1. H2H training is minimal in all military units as the emphasis is on individual and crew served weapons and tactics, communications equipment, battlefield maneuver and equipment maintenance.

2. The standard set by military units for H2H proficiency is relatively low. It is generally a "feel good" exercise meant to develop confidence.

3. Clearly it would not make good business sense to advertise that the military uses your stuff because they don't have any time to actually train and since they have relatively low performance standards for H2H, your program was selected because they don't expect it to accomplish much anyway.

This whole "official H2H system" of the "super secret XYZ Soviet/Israeli/SF" is pure marketing.

Try it. If you like it, stick with it, It might be great. Just do not fall for the hype.

Fletch, i presume this message was to me, and i am very happy with my style, as it is not actually Krav Maga, it is Hock's CQC. I think this style is extemly useful and have not run into a situation where i have not been able to utilize it, unlike other styles i have studied. And when refering to the army using my style, it was MP's who Do need good H2H skills and SAS, who do special ops, which, believe it or not, do also use a higher form of H2H. But bed=sides that, we utilize many techniques useful for peolpe in the sucurity buisness who must learn restraint and removal techniques and tactics. Not that i would be biased, but i find this style works alot better for me than soley studying Boxing/Muay Thai/Phillipino/Wing Chun/Knife/Impact Weapon/ ect, as learning useful techniques from each of these are easier than learning the whole systems. What Styles do you train in, so i can point out the inadequeces of it as well?

You point out how KM is trained by military. This is supposed to give it credibility. Well, the reality is that the military has limited time to spend on H2H training and the proficiency standards are relatively low. It is a strategic and administrative compromise. The marketing would have you believe otherwise.

What someone can do who is a well trained representative of a particular program can do vs an average person with the minimum training can do. That is the question. Clearly, there are tough guys who train regularly in KM. There are tough guys that don't. So what? When it is examined objectively, I don't think the KM training will make the difference over another given training program. KM has a commercial marketing appeal, that is the difference. Marketing gets more people to train, absolutely. Just don't confuse that with the KM training being on a higher level of performance.

My point is not to talk down about your "style". A style comparison is not what this is about although it seems that many KM people take this as an attack. Martial arts is funny like that and KM is clearly a martial art in that respect. Neither better nor worse than other programs currently available.

As far as my style? Fletch-Do, Fletch-Jitsu & Fletch-Fu. Suffice it to say that my training and what I teach includes standup, clinch and ground and is trained in an "alive" environment.

I kind of know a little about military and law enforcement training as well.

you are right and wrong. in the israeli army, there are several units that would be considered light infantry in the US military, that are primarily focused on close combat and what is called anti-terror. a lot of things that in the US would be handled by a swat team in israel would be handled by one of these units.

the main people who are supposed to train in krav maga are these units. the vast majority of the military either has no krav maga training, or a few days at best. even regular line infantry has only a week or so of training in krav maga. the chance of a regular soldier ever having to hit somebody is very very slim.

all stylesare marketed,after all, people who teach astyle for a living do need to have enough students to make an income... i have seen many styles market themselves as the be all end all of MA, not just KM, so to put this in the KM forum and not the general MA forum isnt really practical is it?

It's not practical to ask KM practitioners KM questions?

As for Marketing you would have to ask the Los Angeles based association about that. I have been trained by Israelis and I do see a difference in training in American schools. It is a result of the licensing to McDojos that are Karate and Tae Kwon Doe Black Belt Superstores.

Alot of KM is based on instinct and not complex with a few basic moves that can be adapted to weapons defense as well. But for those who want to learn more KM has as much of a curriculum as any self defense system. the system has not gotten popular until recently and many Americans have just not seen past the beginning levels of the system.

The answer to original question: Yes KM is faster to learn for real life self defense in a short amount of time.

Although I do several other things I like to consider myself a Hopkido guy. As such I have no problem admitting the kind of instructing you find in most Krav Maga schools will create an effective fighter much faster than my own style of teaching Hapkido.

However, I'm pretty sure if I were asked to teach Hapkido to say, a group of soldiers that would be shipped off to war or peacekeeping or other such things in a matter of months I believe I'd teach it exactly like Krav Maga is taught. This is pretty easy to say considering Krav Maga and Hapkido seem almost identical to me.

In Hapkido we teach basic, direct hand, foot, knee, and elbow strikes. It has been my personal experience that these are the most reliaple, most valuable core of techniques that even the most advances student will use more than anything else. The benefits are obvious.

We teach every stance in Hapkido from the beginning, there's just no reason not to and they're a vital component of everything else you do.

We teach a collection of simple, direct takedowns that generally form the conceptual basis for more advanced takedowns. We usually refer to them as takedowns but I think most say "throws" as you aren't falling with them. This is immediately useful.

We teach breakfalling and rolling. Maybe you wont learn how to take a fall on concrete without any injury for a long, long time, but with only a month of training you'll be vastly less likely to suffer serious injury from such falls. Immediate benefits.

We teach a collection of techniques generally refered to as "self defense". These teach students how to quickly and efficiently escape from common attacks such as headlocks, wrist and arm grabs, chokes, shirt grabs and other such things. Introduces students to the science of joint locking and manipulation and is immediately useful in self defense situations.

We teach defense against common weapons such as knives, pistols, and clubs/batons. The vast majority of street encounters will likely involve weapons of some kind, and you will likely be unarmed when attacked, very valuable for self defense or anyone else that plans to encounter weapons anywhere, ever.

On the other hand...

We teach many kicks such as reverse hook kicks from a stationary backstance and low roundhouse sweeps that will certainly give you an edge in combat, but require a great degree of flexability, coordination, balance and tactical experience to use properly. You wont benefit from these for a long, long time.

We teach many hand strikes such as Mantis Fist, Ridgehand and Snake Fist that require a great degree of experience and hand conditioning to apply correctly. These are taught to advanced students for a reason. You probably wont use them in a fight for quite a while, even if you know them, and if you do you probably shouldn't.

We teach a lot of takedowns/throws that either require lots of finesse and very dynamic control of the opponent, exploit oppenings that you probably wont even see or create for a while, and are sometimes rather dangerious. Better to stick to the basics until you've got more experience.

We teach some acrobatics that could potentially be useful in a fight, but I personally believe are designed to make the student mobile and comfortable in any position they may find themselves in, rather than being a technique you intentional use to counter or evade something else.

We teach a lot of joint locking techniques that require an immense degree of precision to work properly. If done correctly, you can render a foe helpless and completely under you physical control. The problem is it'll be ages before you have the knowledge to make them work at all.

We teach pretty much all the pressure points on the human body. Requires precision and frankly aren't all that useful relative to other things you could be learning. They help out with control and locks and such, but they're more of a last resort in bad situations.

We teach forms. Now don't get me wrong, I think forms are an incredibly useful tool. They're something you can do anywhere, anytime. They teach footwork, coordination, tactical applications of your techniques, high level concepts in combat. They let you practice all the basics in a more dynamic, and frankly more interesting way as well as giving you an excellent library of if not all, the vast majority of your art's techniques. They also have meditative and other more abstract uses that I consider valuable. However, they are not, in my opinion, vital to training. You can become a good fighter never having done a single form. They're very time consuming and lets face it, how long before our students really start to see things in forms? Six Months? A year? That's not immediately useful and as such will only waste our very limited time.

We teach a lot of weapons that are certainly very fun windows into history, and teach a lot of principles that I've found valuable in unharmed combat. Unfortunately the majority of these weapons are no longer used anywhere in the world and even civilians who do not have access to combat knives and guns would find little benefit from the majority of them. I can see stick and knife fighting being useful in some situations, but not useful enough to teach.

Why would you include all of these latter things if you didn't expect them to be long term students, or knew they'd be going into dangerous situations in the immediate future? I know I wouldn't, and Krav Maga doesn't seem to either.