A few years ago, when I began teaching krav maga, I found that a lot of people were being taken in by something called: Commando Krav Maga. I posted this comment on another site:
"Why does Moni Aizik call his style Commando Krav Maga?
He claims that in combat situations ordinary KM was not as effective as his competitive judo, he therefore had to create his own style of Commando Krav Maga. It makes sense that under stress he should revert to judo – he was a judo champion. All his reflexes were conditioned by his judo training and the brief Krav Maga training that soldiers receive could not recondition these reflexes. Nor should it – judo is an effective close quarter art as well as being a sport – so too are Western and Thai boxing.
Without detracting from Mr Aizik’s no-doubt deserved reputation as a fighter, what he does is no more Israeli Krav Maga than karate, kung fu, or taekwondo.
OK, in the literal sense krav maga does mean ‘close combat’, so Moni Aizik claims justification naming his style. But, all of the above arts are forms of close combat (krav maga) … Then again, all are ‘empty hand’ (kara te), all require ‘hard work’ (kung fu), all are ‘ways of fist and foot’ (tae kwon do). We follow the convention of respecting names to avoid confusion between quite different arts.
So, why would Mr Aizik promote this confusion?
Krav maga is based on security, simplicity, ease of learning, and speed of execution along the shortest line.
What Moni Aizik does is clearly based on his judo/jujitsu. Out of respect both for these and for krav maga, he should choose some other name for his style - perhaps Commando Judo … or even Israeli Jujitsu if he wants to honour his roots along the lines of Brazilian Jujitsu?"
Since I posted that it has been discovered that the founder was a PTI and not an unarmed combat instructor, nor even a commando. (I stand to be corrected if anyone has more up to date information).
http://www.britishkravmagaassociatio...ucks-html.html
shows an intelligent article by Stuart McGill demonstrating that the CKM claims are nonsense.
However, Stuart himself has, with others, founded his own system called Urban Krav Maga. He has enough integrity to say: "We do not make any claims that our techniques are used by any military organisation. We're happy for them to be judged on their merits, not assumed to be good because of their supposedly being taught to a regular army or Special Forces Unit. "
My problem is that he keeps the Hebrew name of Krav Maga, meaning close fighting - implying some sort of Israeli root which will confuse those who know no better.
He seems justify this use by saying:
"Combined the best elements of the systems referred to above [Krav Maga: Karate; Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Traditional Jiu Jitsu, Aikido, Boxing, Muay Thai, Tae Kwan Do and MMA.] with the Israeli mentality of "this is the problem - what is the solution?" as opposed to the more abstract, indirect approach of many traditional arts."
But I would submit that practicality is something most of us seek. I do not think it is enough reason to give a discipline an Israeli label nor that that label carries much meaning.
Without initially wishing to comment on the technical aspects and probable efficiency (or not) of UKM in this thread, I would invite MAPpers to consider these videos of KM and compare them with videos of UKM (why are all the comments disabled on Youtube?).
I would then ask why would you call something by a name that is generally used to describe something very different?
So for example, to compare like with like, consider knife defences in two instructional videos, one KM the other UKM:
For KM look at time mark 32:04 (This video is long, so make sure you start at the right time mark.) in http://ift.tt/1oXuMGq.
For UKM look at http://ift.tt/1oXuKhN . (On time mark 0:19 he actually denigrates the beginning of the real KM drill without having understood it.)
Again, my question is not which defence do you prefer, but why would someone teaching things so apparently at odds with KM, give their system that name?
For a UKM gun defence, see: http://ift.tt/1oXuKhR
You will see that the technique is completely different, look at time mark: 2:26 on http://ift.tt/1oXuKhT
For what it's worth, I actually quite like the UKM defence which seems workable, but the two bear no resemblance.
I do not hide that part of my gripe is commercial. All credit to UKM's internet investment. But I study and teach a discipline that is what it says on the tin and I accept competition from others that offer a similar product under the same name. Then we all have to see who offers the best location, standards, prices, teaching, etc. But UKM is no more krav maga than Wing Chun is western boxing, or judo is catch wrestling. Imagine looking for a ninjitsu class and finding a dojo full of karateka dressed in black gis; or a western boxing club calling itself British Kung Fu and dressing everyone in Shaolin robes. If you did not know what you were looking for, you might be taken in.
It does irk me to have to compete with people who use the same name, and thereby benefit from the general notoriety of the discipline, and then offer something very different.
Why not call their style Urban Close Combat, or Street somethingorother Jitsu? At least the uninitiated would not Google Krav Maga in South London, looking for a class and be bombarded with ads and links to a system that is not what they set out to learn.
Perhaps some UKMers would like to comment.
"Why does Moni Aizik call his style Commando Krav Maga?
He claims that in combat situations ordinary KM was not as effective as his competitive judo, he therefore had to create his own style of Commando Krav Maga. It makes sense that under stress he should revert to judo – he was a judo champion. All his reflexes were conditioned by his judo training and the brief Krav Maga training that soldiers receive could not recondition these reflexes. Nor should it – judo is an effective close quarter art as well as being a sport – so too are Western and Thai boxing.
Without detracting from Mr Aizik’s no-doubt deserved reputation as a fighter, what he does is no more Israeli Krav Maga than karate, kung fu, or taekwondo.
OK, in the literal sense krav maga does mean ‘close combat’, so Moni Aizik claims justification naming his style. But, all of the above arts are forms of close combat (krav maga) … Then again, all are ‘empty hand’ (kara te), all require ‘hard work’ (kung fu), all are ‘ways of fist and foot’ (tae kwon do). We follow the convention of respecting names to avoid confusion between quite different arts.
So, why would Mr Aizik promote this confusion?
Krav maga is based on security, simplicity, ease of learning, and speed of execution along the shortest line.
What Moni Aizik does is clearly based on his judo/jujitsu. Out of respect both for these and for krav maga, he should choose some other name for his style - perhaps Commando Judo … or even Israeli Jujitsu if he wants to honour his roots along the lines of Brazilian Jujitsu?"
Since I posted that it has been discovered that the founder was a PTI and not an unarmed combat instructor, nor even a commando. (I stand to be corrected if anyone has more up to date information).
http://www.britishkravmagaassociatio...ucks-html.html
shows an intelligent article by Stuart McGill demonstrating that the CKM claims are nonsense.
However, Stuart himself has, with others, founded his own system called Urban Krav Maga. He has enough integrity to say: "We do not make any claims that our techniques are used by any military organisation. We're happy for them to be judged on their merits, not assumed to be good because of their supposedly being taught to a regular army or Special Forces Unit. "
My problem is that he keeps the Hebrew name of Krav Maga, meaning close fighting - implying some sort of Israeli root which will confuse those who know no better.
He seems justify this use by saying:
"Combined the best elements of the systems referred to above [Krav Maga: Karate; Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Traditional Jiu Jitsu, Aikido, Boxing, Muay Thai, Tae Kwan Do and MMA.] with the Israeli mentality of "this is the problem - what is the solution?" as opposed to the more abstract, indirect approach of many traditional arts."
But I would submit that practicality is something most of us seek. I do not think it is enough reason to give a discipline an Israeli label nor that that label carries much meaning.
Without initially wishing to comment on the technical aspects and probable efficiency (or not) of UKM in this thread, I would invite MAPpers to consider these videos of KM and compare them with videos of UKM (why are all the comments disabled on Youtube?).
I would then ask why would you call something by a name that is generally used to describe something very different?
So for example, to compare like with like, consider knife defences in two instructional videos, one KM the other UKM:
For KM look at time mark 32:04 (This video is long, so make sure you start at the right time mark.) in http://ift.tt/1oXuMGq.
For UKM look at http://ift.tt/1oXuKhN . (On time mark 0:19 he actually denigrates the beginning of the real KM drill without having understood it.)
Again, my question is not which defence do you prefer, but why would someone teaching things so apparently at odds with KM, give their system that name?
For a UKM gun defence, see: http://ift.tt/1oXuKhR
You will see that the technique is completely different, look at time mark: 2:26 on http://ift.tt/1oXuKhT
For what it's worth, I actually quite like the UKM defence which seems workable, but the two bear no resemblance.
I do not hide that part of my gripe is commercial. All credit to UKM's internet investment. But I study and teach a discipline that is what it says on the tin and I accept competition from others that offer a similar product under the same name. Then we all have to see who offers the best location, standards, prices, teaching, etc. But UKM is no more krav maga than Wing Chun is western boxing, or judo is catch wrestling. Imagine looking for a ninjitsu class and finding a dojo full of karateka dressed in black gis; or a western boxing club calling itself British Kung Fu and dressing everyone in Shaolin robes. If you did not know what you were looking for, you might be taken in.
It does irk me to have to compete with people who use the same name, and thereby benefit from the general notoriety of the discipline, and then offer something very different.
Why not call their style Urban Close Combat, or Street somethingorother Jitsu? At least the uninitiated would not Google Krav Maga in South London, looking for a class and be bombarded with ads and links to a system that is not what they set out to learn.
Perhaps some UKMers would like to comment.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire