See my edit You mention drills, and I think that would be a much better way to illustrate your point, because at least it will demonstrate the principles at work under some amount of pressure.
I may be at cross purposes (again!) but pretty much all of the things in the videos are taught as drills. Like this - though I am not saying this particular drill is distinctive ( I really don't know) but the teaching of it is pretty FEKM rather than anything else I've seen. https://youtu.be/6_3NJ6NEfD8
I mean non-compliant drills. What you are showing is essentially partnered kata (Edit for Dean and the ninjers: not to say that pressure cannot be applied to partnered kata ). There are expectations that, I believe, Hannibal and Knee Rider have that you haven't quite cottoned-on to. All the videos above show the faux pressure that Hannibal mentioned some pages ago. Seeing how a person adapts when things don't go according to plan is where the principles of a style are truly revealed, in my opinion.
Compliance My understanding of drills is that there is an element of compliance. The attack is known and the response is programmed and so conditioned reflexes are built. However we are told (and we practice) that if a partner does not relax after a strike sufficiently for a lock or throw or disarm to be applied, let go and/or hit him/her again. If you mean some sort of freefighting that remains a drill you would have to find me an example because I don't understand what you mean.
... but again I am arguing for the distinctiveness of always (nearly) going TO the attack in the way demonstrated whenever possible as the FIRST principle of defence. Whether they are effect under pressure is a different matter.
I think of drilling as a spectrum, from strict parameters to free sparring. Once a basic level of technical competence is achieved, more variables should be introduced. That is mirrored in microcosmic form in the sessions too; say you begin with a set response to a hook punch to the temple, then you expand the principle to a straight punch, then punches to the body, then any punch of the attacker's choosing (without telling their partner beforehand). What is very important is that the intent of the attacker should always be to successfully achieve their stated aims, which is no mean feat in set drills! Even at beginner level, it may be slow and dealing with known variables, but the intent and non-compliance should still be present. For pure neuromuscular programming, strict drilling parameters may be desirable, but that has to be balanced with varying degrees of dealing with the unexpected to learn how to adapt, in my opinion. If there are no shades of grey between set drills and free sparring, I believe one is missing out on an important part of training.
How would you say that principle is distinctive from someone with a grappling base, who's first instinct is to shoot-in, close down their opponent's ability to attack and then submit or ground and pound?
I'll answer both points here. The grey area you mention it think is covered in the speed of attack, to some extent. But that gets branded faux-pressure. I do agree that responses need to vary but that needs to be taught live and would be even more tedious in a videos than these already are. I note that you did not post a video to illustrate your point including Marbo (no need to - I do understand the point and why your site does not include videos unless I'm looking at it wrongly). The shooting in is a good example. We teach a couple of responses but not that as an attack-defence because it is not safe or takes too long to teach to do safely when that time could be better spent on other things in an SD system. So the principle I mention is shared by the aggressive fighter though i think none would say it is a principle of MMA or BJJ to attack whenever possible. But it is in km.
Anyone can look cool if they practice a set sequence progressively from slow to fast. In my experience, that is far less pressure than practicing slowly with unclear outcomes and a genuine objective for both parties. Nope, you're never going to see a video from me. As I've said before on MAP, I don't see any purpose to them other than for drumming-up business or the enjoyment of seeing oneself on a screen, neither of which I am particularly interested in. We don't even allow people to observe classes. Either you are participating in it, or you don't get to see it. I'm afraid you will have to rely on my written opinions, or if I can find video examples from other arts. This seems like a rather limiting principle. What happens when it is safer not to engage?
Here's a good example of non-compliant drilling (though bear in mind that it is a demonstration of a drill, rather than being the drill itself). The techniques being drilled are neither here nor there, but the principle is that both parties have a clear objective and the outcome is not predetermined. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tucyPN4gp04"]Chuck Liddell - MMA Takedown with Punches Drill - YouTube[/ame]
Purposes The purpose is not to look cool (unless it's a public demo). Most of the videos I posted were for teachers. But in either case the principles of the techniques can be discussed. I don't need to see you. I know from Simon Pither that Marbo is effective for fighting. But the purposes of videos may also be to visualise points for discussion. Videos from other arts suffice. As for the Liddell video, good example. We do not have such examples in our video arsenal as neither do you, as far as I know. But we do teach variety of responses and adaptation. Will you take my word for it?
Of course I will Remi! Please note that I am not attempting to attack your training (although I am interested in discussing your principle of always attacking), but rather trying to facilitate your discussion with Hannibal, Knee Rider et al by explaining the kind of thing I believe they are looking for. As you say, there are a number of crossed wires in this discussion, and I'm just helping to untangle them, so that more interesting topics can be covered.
The Expendables. What about when it is safer to wait for an opportunity to engage? Or using stalling tactics and/or verbal distraction to gain a tactical advantage before engaging? Not sure what you mean by this.
You're all good mate, there is that group you told me about near me that do free taster days. I will just check that out. I think the videos suffer from a common problem of totally unrealistic energy, uke going limp after initial feed, over selling of atemi/strikes etc some things don't seem viable or even worth demonstrating. Especially the killer one kick solutions etc. I'm open minded to the utility of krav if trained well. I'm not going to bog you down in a technical discussion. I just wanted to voice my disappointment I guess.
Firstly thank you for the lengthy reply However, none of that - and I mean none of it - is distinct technique wise. Replace "krav" with any other combatives system and it looks the same This is not a negative per se - you have however pretty much proven my point that what makes Krav...well "Krav"...is the actual MIX of the parts, and it has nothing distinct that is JUST Krav I do not want to get onto the efficacy or otherwise of the actual techniques you kindly listed here Now pressure vs pseudo pressure - this has two phases: expected response drills and open drills Sparring is an obvious example of an open drill, but there are others that are still restricted in technique but not execution - this is a good example (and also an illustration of how crappy and unrealistic the majority of knife defense taught is as a bonus) [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WjSTIcE0cE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WjSTIcE0cE[/ame] Shamelessly pimping myself this is another example - this is entirely unrehearsed and I have no idea about what attack (if any) will be delivered. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQKtRZXNetE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQKtRZXNetE[/ame] Now, taking an expected response drill I am going to use Karate (much maligned, very misunderstood) as an example. This is "ippon kumite" from some shotokan exponents - [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puE7wGs_dXs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puE7wGs_dXs[/ame] The initial attack is set - you know what is coming. The strike is delivered to actually hit though. What tori (defender) does to uke (attacker) after that is irrelevant to uke, because their purpose is to deliver an attack. This gives a "consequence to failure" but with only one variable to deal with This is another one about distance - haven't watched it back for a while but there is a distinct possibility of a little bit of a ToS word sneaking in given the instructor.... [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxldA892uf8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxldA892uf8[/ame]
