not impressed
Posted by: Stormdragon
not impressed - 08/23/06 02:35 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2wOnMgxeSBwhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=SxJDejeXJeII'm sorry, but 90% of this is just plain pathetic and completely unrealistic. It just doesn't work htis way. Please someone tell me this kind of thing is just unusually bad. The second video is much better and some of it is actually very good, but most of this is really not anything special. It's very static on the part of the attacker in most cases and is just to stiff and routined.
Now dont get me wrong, i love krav maga, but htis stuff just isn't much.
Posted by: JasonM
Re: not impressed - 08/23/06 03:02 PM
That first vid was a "demo".
What would you do differently in the attacks on the first vid?
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: not impressed - 08/23/06 03:14 PM
First off, the attackers should put up at least SOME resistence, and if krav maag is effective the techniques will still work very well, I mean, they just let the defender pull off the techniques perfectly, next there's way too many flashy high kicks and spin kicks, and then, on the knife attackes, well, I think oyu know as well as I do that 99% of guys wont atatck that way with a knife, with one wide open attack, that's slow like that.
It was a crappy demonstration even among those standards.
Posted by: JasonM
Re: not impressed - 08/23/06 03:43 PM
Well, in all demos the idea is to show the technigue in it's simpliest form. Ya have to get the basics down before moving into the "realistic" attacks. If I was new and thrown into a KM class and someone came swining wildly at me with a knife, it might freak me out. The technique has to be taught first and then fine tuned and applied to the more realistic attacks.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: not impressed - 08/23/06 03:48 PM
I would think they'd demo the techniques with high level practitioners who can pull of the moves in a realistic scenario.
Posted by: JABB
Re: not impressed - 08/31/06 09:00 AM
In a traditional demo that would more than likely be the case.
It looks to me like they are doing a demo for either future students, or new students. In which case I would just show some applications for the techniques they are doing.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: not impressed - 08/31/06 03:22 PM
In any case I just dnt htink it's a very high quality demo IMO.
Posted by: Chen Zen
Re: not impressed - 10/08/06 08:51 PM
I was totally impressed to see the guy at the end kick the smaller girl off stage on the first Vid.
Looked like garbage to me. The gun defenses was garbage. The multiple, high kicking was trash too. Amzing what gets passed off as "Realistic self defense"
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: not impressed - 10/08/06 09:19 PM
that kind of thing will get people killed someday. GM. IMI Licthenfeld would turn over in his grave if he saw that.
Posted by: casmor
Re: not impressed - 01/25/07 06:17 PM
I didn't like the videos.
Check this out instead
kapap video
Posted by: Fletch1
Re: not impressed - 01/26/07 03:57 AM
Both videos looked like pretty standard, if not above average KM training/demo. Everything will fall apart if resistance is added to it and it will just look like brawling.
I think this is the case even with high level KM people. SD training can only be effective and safe with role play. The more the role player resists, the more of an opponent he becomes and the worse the technique is going to look.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: not impressed - 01/28/07 05:17 PM
You of all people should know that you have to break away form role playing, at least as the major part of your training, at a reasonable time after you start training or you never learn to actually apply your techniques for real. Many techniques will work the same and will look the same as in role playing when you get good enough, and many dont, but thats how oyu learn to improvise and get really good. It's what we call BS otherwise.
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: not impressed - 02/01/07 11:33 AM
These videos reminded me exactly why I stopped going to a krav school - flashy kicks, sub-par boxing skills and unbalanced 'freak out' attacks do not a good fighter make.
Posted by: SEAL
Re: not impressed - 02/01/07 11:34 PM
Please allow me to express my opinion on this matter. Here's my philosophy: If you want to be a fighter, train in MMA. If you want to learn self-defense (different from fighting), take self-defense classes. Many martial arts schools are either enjoying a renaissance or struggling to adapt. It's becoming more commonplace for a school to offer a multiude of programs, a one-stop shop for all your martial arts needs. Obviously, they want to attract the MMA fans. Certainly, many krav schools across the country subscribe to this pathway. As an example, there are two krav schools in my area who basically teach something like MMA, mixing in self-defense. My feeling is, again, I see fighting and self-defense as two different, opposing entities.
On the street, if someone tries to harm you, you defend yourself. Once you have that window of opportunity to escape and call for help, take it. If you don't, then it's no longer self-defense; it's fighting, because you could've ended the confrontation, yet you chose to continue. So, I look at fighting as voluntary. If you had to kill the guy to survive, that's self-defense. But if you killed the guy, even though you had a chance to escape with your life, that's fighting.
Concerning self-defense, I'm of the opinion you don't need to spend years learning krav or systema or whatever. Kapap is great. It's a short-term program designed for self-defense. You don't need to spend years working towards a BB for knife and gun defenses. I drilled knife and gun defenses years ago. We didn't work on them every week or anything. Yet I still remember them and could repeat them at a given moment. It could be I have a good memory, who knows. But my point is self-defense is not rocket science. Please don't misunderstood; I'm not condemning Krav. I'm just saying you can learn good self-defense in a relatively short period of time.
Posted by: demor
Re: not impressed - 02/08/07 02:51 PM
Quote:
Please allow me to express my opinion on this matter. Here's my philosophy: If you want to be a fighter, train in MMA. If you want to learn self-defense (different from fighting), take self-defense classes. Many martial arts schools are either enjoying a renaissance or struggling to adapt. It's becoming more commonplace for a school to offer a multiude of programs, a one-stop shop for all your martial arts needs. Obviously, they want to attract the MMA fans. Certainly, many krav schools across the country subscribe to this pathway. As an example, there are two krav schools in my area who basically teach something like MMA, mixing in self-defense. My feeling is, again, I see fighting and self-defense as two different, opposing entities.
On the street, if someone tries to harm you, you defend yourself. Once you have that window of opportunity to escape and call for help, take it. If you don't, then it's no longer self-defense; it's fighting, because you could've ended the confrontation, yet you chose to continue. So, I look at fighting as voluntary. If you had to kill the guy to survive, that's self-defense. But if you killed the guy, even though you had a chance to escape with your life, that's fighting. ---
Yeah I pretty much agree
the way i think it is:
Ring fight and self defence are two different things,
but a real fighting and self defence are the same thing.
when you have good ability to fight, you have good ability to defend yourself.
I agree that ofcourse the best way to defend yourself is to avoid a fight in the first place,and also to leave the fight when it's possible. But many times it's not possible to avoid the fight and it's not possible to leave before you have beaten down the opponent. There are cases where you can't back up, and in that moment your self-defence is to fight. And then you should use any technique that helps you to beat the heck out of the opponent in that situtaion. ANY technique, because now we are NOT talking about combat sports, which have rules and regulations (even MMA matches has rules). We are talking about real fight,and about how to defend yourself. After you have beaten the opponent and cleared the sitution then it's sensible to leave the scene before maybe other attackers come. Sometimes the other guy doesn't have to lay in the ground to call it your win. sometimes you just injure him slightly so that you are able to leave.
I read here some talk about the difference between "winning a fight" and "surviving a fight". I understand it, but to me there's not much difference... To be able to survive the fight, you better be able to be the better fighter. You better be able to "win". If you survive a fight in some otherway, then i would call it partly "luck" instead of
good self-defence. There is a good point that you don't always have to have better all in all fighting skills,
to survive a fight, but i think that the more you are able to train all your fighting skills, then
more likely it's the other guy (attacker) who is going to suffer instead of you.
And to be able to beat the opponent you have to be prepared by training every aspect of fighting. Weather you train krav maga or mma or any martial art. Just don't let styles or anything restrict you and your develpement. Use the techniques that are most efficient to you. Be in good physical shape and train and test the tecniques with alive situations by sparring. Certain Mr. Lee compared practising fight without opponent with swiming on a dry land.
I think we have pretty much same thought, I just put it in other words 
Posted by: sproutopop
Re: not impressed - 03/30/07 10:34 AM
I spent over 4 years training in Krav Maga. Those videos didn't represent any kind of normal training session.
The intensity we practiced with was much higher. Also our attackers were encouraged to constantly vary their attacks to force the defender to be creative and also remind them that the flashy stuff is often the least useful.
The most important element, that was constant even at the lower levels, were the drills. Every one of them was designed to teach students that quitting was not an option.
That mind-set was probably more valuable than any single technique.
I obviously can't speak for all schools, but it seemed that our instructors tried to keep fairly faithful to the military origins of Krav Maga. The "don't quit or someone will kill you" mentality is fairly consistent with that.
Posted by: Dudley32
Re: not impressed - 03/30/07 10:59 AM
This one is at least more realistic. Still some sloppy stuff, but it has some good ideas.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0i7N6Y7OYwI&mode=related&search=Matt
Posted by: Fletch1
Re: not impressed - 03/31/07 12:00 PM
Quote:
You of all people should know that you have to break away form role playing, at least as the major part of your training, at a reasonable time after you start training or you never learn to actually apply your techniques for real. Many techniques will work the same and will look the same as in role playing when you get good enough, and many dont, but thats how oyu learn to improvise and get really good. It's what we call BS otherwise.
That would be incorrect. Role play is something you do to bring together skillsets already developed with skill training. If you can't make your skills in reality resemble what they look like in training, then either more practice time is needed or the techniques themselves need to be reconsidered.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: not impressed - 04/13/07 11:51 PM
Tell that to JK.
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: not impressed - 04/14/07 09:55 PM
Quote:
This one is at least more realistic. Still some sloppy stuff, but it has some good ideas.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0i7N6Y7OYwI&mode=related&search=
Matt
What those guys are doing looks great in these drills, but I wonder how well they would hold up in a situation where gassing out would spell their death?
Posted by: JKogas
Re: not impressed - 04/14/07 10:02 PM
Quote:
Tell that to JK.
Well it depends on how it's done Storm. If there is resistance and aliveness and little "play along pretend training", you can do anything you want and you'll reap some benefit.
There are always roles to play.
When I'm working my guard and my opponent is trying defend and PASS my guard, we are playing roles. Are we not?
But we AREN'T pretending. There is very little compliance in the training unless he's an absolute beginner.
Etc.
-John
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: not impressed - 04/14/07 10:41 PM
See it looked liek that one vid was ALL pretending.
You confuse me. lol
Posted by: Curly
Re: not impressed - 04/21/07 09:38 PM
This was developed by the military so most of these look like kill-techniques.
Posted by: jude33
Re: not impressed - 04/25/07 02:00 AM
Quote:
Quote:
This one is at least more realistic. Still some sloppy stuff, but it has some good ideas.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0i7N6Y7OYwI&mode=related&search=
Matt
What those guys are doing looks great in these drills, but I wonder how well they would hold up in a situation where gassing out would spell their death?
I think I will stick to the trad martial arts and include some wrestling skills. What is they guy doing at the start of the vidoe?
Horrible!
Posted by: sinanimal
Re: not impressed - 05/08/07 03:45 PM
This all seems way to coreographed. If you interested in some realistic self defense training there is nothing better then tony blauer's spear system something everyone serious about self defense should check out.
i've been working with the company for two years and after 18 years of martial arts training and 10 years of teaching his program is the most effective and realistic stuff out there.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-QkJGxPytQI
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: not impressed - 05/09/07 02:01 PM
Nothing better my ass. Just as good as anything, what about the Shredder?
Posted by: sproutopop
Re: not impressed - 05/09/07 02:28 PM
I was a long time Krav student, and its a great system. I can vouch for the Shredder too. Its simple and very effective if done correctly.
Posted by: sinanimal
Re: not impressed - 05/09/07 09:50 PM
Let me re-phrase that theres nothing as informative. Most self-defense programs have something to offer. However re-searching his cerebral and psychological sides to self-defense compares to nothing i've seen.
I'm not familiar with shredder but always open to new ideas.
Posted by: sinanimal
Re: not impressed - 05/09/07 09:55 PM
Quote:
I was a long time Krav student, and its a great system. I can vouch for the Shredder too. Its simple and very effective if done correctly.
What do you mean if done correctly?
Posted by: sproutopop
Re: not impressed - 05/09/07 10:43 PM
Other people who have trained in senshido longer than I have will probably have much more to say about it, but in my opinion The Shredder is such a shock to an opponent that the person trying to apply it can become too dependent upon it. They basically get tunnel vision and want to apply it in situations where you are completely out of range. (I am saying this because I have gotten that tunnel vision myself.)
If you try to Shred someone at the wrong distance (extended arm range or farther)it offers an opponent the opportunity to defend.
To me, the most complicated part of the whole thing is getting to that very close in Shredding range.
That's where the psychological part of what you were mentioning comes into play. I agree, that's very fascinating all by itself.
Posted by: otobeawanker
Re: not impressed - 06/27/07 06:00 AM
I found the videos intresting because I've never trained Krav Maga from a school. I looked up the unarmed vs gun techniques on the internet then started drilling the material using a paintball pistol and paintball goggles. The krav maga works well when the pistol is within arms reach. But for distances 5 - 8 ft I had to come up with my own techniques. I've gotten very lite on my feet. The average joe, the first time they do this drill, can't score a hit with me starting 8ft away. By the time I close distance they usually only get two or three poorly aimed shots off. Then the gun is disarmed and I give them a nice couple shots with my fists or whatever. Once they learn that I have only two sides to really dodge to, left or right, and as they become better at shooting a moving target, it becomes easier for them to score hits. But I've never had anyone be able to hit me the first time they do this drill. That's why I think it has merit for practical application and if I ever find out, I'll let you know.
Posted by: Viator
Re: not impressed - 07/03/07 11:06 AM
Quote:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0i7N6Y7OYwI&mode=related&search=
Gun training is good. Terrible, terrible muay thai is bad.
Posted by: shantungks
Re: not impressed - 11/17/07 05:48 PM
One question? How many here have worked in an environment where thye actually had to defend themselves often or had physical encounters? How many have had to apply what they already know?
In the ring is different. Rules, refes to stop the fight. Street or psych hospital? Only you can stop the fight or when the other ones beats you up senseless.
Posted by: janxspirit
Re: not impressed - 02/25/08 10:13 AM
Quote:
One question? How many here have worked in an environment where thye actually had to defend themselves often or had physical encounters? How many have had to apply what they already know?
In the ring is different. Rules, refes to stop the fight. Street or psych hospital? Only you can stop the fight or when the other ones beats you up senseless.
Sure, but the ring is the best place to train for the street, nonetheless.