Sorry it took so long to reply, been very busy.

For someone who is a non martial artist a basic self defense clan can be predicated on such techniques good enough for escapes. Single attacking techniques delivered to an opponent by surprised not meant to maim or kill but good enough to enough to make a quick get away.

What you're saying here is logical. But it doesn' really address the problem I put forward: if this non-martial artist is heavily reliant on single fight ending techniques...what happens if it doesn't work? What I'm getting at is that any training that teaches, even a beginner, a singly fight ending technique as adequete self defence is highly questionable.

As a matter of fact, I think it is worse to teach this kind of stuff to non-martial least someone who plans to continue training will (should!) gradually learn more techniques and be able to create chains of movement that way so that eventually they will not rely on a single technique. A non-martial artist who takes a couple of workshops is often given a false sense of security in thinking that they can survive an encounter because they "have the right move" to escape. This, to me, is a little bit like giving someone a gun with a single bullet and asking them to face a uzi.

Why should you wait for a "more advanced course" to learn good self defence. Look at the work of Paul Vunak, he teaches continuous flow from day one, in a highly realistic environment so that reactions are not chereographed.

That's why they are sports. Because it's based on continuous combat separated by weight classes to make things as equal as possible.

I don't see your point? Regarding the weight class issue are you saying it would take less time for a smaller defender to incapicitate an attacker on the street?

Further, what is the phsiological difference between a punch to the face (or kick in the belly) in krav maga compared to a punch in the face, or kick in the gut, in a combat "sport"? Why is it that every kick that lands to the belly in Krav seems to make the person getting kicked buckle, yet this doesn't happen (not 100%) to people who take the same technique in full contact karate, muay thai, savate, mma, etc?

Here's an example: This is from Human Weapon. At the beginning of the show, for some reason, Chambers' kick at little effect on the attacker (about 5:10):

The kick happens, but the attacker keeps coming in. Ok, fair enough. What I don't understand though is why at 4:35/36 (in the same clip) the instructor does the very same kind of front kick, yet gets a very different reaction, where the opponent goes flying backwards?? Same for this clip, where, now that he has learned krav, suddenly single knees from Chambers are downing his opponents (@ 4:04):

If you watch that first clip the instructor tells Chambers that he is a good fighter, but has no self defence skill...I'm confused, because that instructor used that exact same technique right before! I call this "instructor chi".

MT is a sport and while they go full contact and fight hard.

You're right. Krav seems to use the clinch, the knee and the elbow, all halmarks of MT. Only difference? MT fighters actually hit each other regularly with those techniques, often not wearing a copious amount of body protection and (most importantly) without cheoreographing the response of the person being hit.

They are not in real life or death combat or at least that is not the goal.

RBSD is not "real life or death combat" either.

Rules, weight classes, and most importantly the element of surprise has been taken away.

Out of the 3 varibles you've outlined only the 2nd (weight classes) is not found in RBSD systems. Rules exist, or else I doubt people would be walking out of training in one piece. Suprise is not truly present either: everyone has elected to go there.

In RBSD both fighters being equal in attributes and skill, it is the one who cheats first using the element of surprise who will be the victor.

Sorry, but how is this different from, say, MMA? Isn't it the one who gets off the best technique (or chain) who is most likely to take out his opponent?? The above strategy is not at odds with MMA, it is the same. You've used the word 'cheat' here, and obviously, being a sport, MMA fighters don't want to cheat, but at the same time the actually concept of what you are talking about is exactly the same as any decent martial art.

Also, I would question the assumptions behind what you are saying: namely that "both fighters being equal in attributes and skill". Is this actually true in a self defence situation? What about the "non-martial artist" you spoke of earlier, who has taken a beginner class or whatever?

I agree you can never go in believing one technique will end the fight. You can only attack and see how it goes.

I agree with the first sentence, but not the second. I don't mean to get overly semantic here, but...using the Jkd terminology here sometimes a single direct attack is indeed the best option, other times it is an attack by combination. I think Krav does a good job with the first, and an ok job with the second. However, other times it is best to feint or use footwork to expose a hole in your opponents defenses(progressive indirect attack), other times it is best to draw your opponet out first. In all the Krav I've seen (which, admittedly is mostly from video, but also some from friends who study it) I havn't really seen the second two used...footwork appears almost non-existent, feinting is rarely is used. Personally, I think this is a direct result of people 'downing' themselves in training once a proper 'krav' attack has been launched (a la the videos above).

Please understand though, that I'm not arguing the old combat sport vs. RBSD thing. What I am suggesting is that without live exchange of techniques, a trainee is depriving themself of an important aspect of fighting/self defence...most importantly the understanding that people receive techniques in a variety of ways. Try punching four different people in the stomach, and watch how they respond...some will step back, some will buckle over, some will take it...all different reactions to the same technique...this is an important dimension of fighting which chereography does not adquetely cover imo.

"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."