HKM and KM Compared

HKM and KM Compared

What are the differences between Hybrid Krav-Maga and Krav Maga

Hybrid Krav-Maga is a non-linear, learner-centered style/approach while traditional Krav Maga is a linear instructor-centered system.

The goal of HKM

The main goal of Hybrid Krav-Maga is to create adaptive problem solvers.

With this as the main task of HKM, it became very clear that teaching linear systems and methods that are instructor-centered is less effective in helping learners to function in extremely non-linear environments.

The main reason for the choice to make HKM a non-linear approach where function is the priority is: solving problems in rapidly enfolding high consequence events needs to be trained in a student-centered, non-linear way.

This way, guided by representative learning design students are allowed to find their way, make mistakes and organically learn to adapt based on their own abilities and the environment they function in.

Right and wrong is a spectrum and right starts at effective!

Comparing HKM and KM

The main reason for comparing HKM and KM is because that is what we are compared to most of the time but a big part of the information is style or system independent.

This means that it could be describing any two activities where one side choose a open and progressive non-linear (ECO) style as the pedagogy for coaching and learning and the other one choose a more traditional, linear (IP) system as the pedagogy for teaching and learning.

The differences brought up in this post are based on my personal 30+ year experience of being a student, instructor and later on one of the top instructors in KM-organizations while also training and teaching professional users and instructors from all walks of life internationally.

I have no intention to do anything else than highlight differences and explain why HKM is what it is, why we do what we do instead of choosing the more traditional road.

Please note that the properties of KM in this article is a generalized picture of KM as a system/style that use a linear, information processing way of teaching and might not be representative for all organizations or schools where principles and methods can vary greatly.

I leave it up to everyone to use the pedagogy and style that one feels is the right one for them, their style/system and their way of training. Everyone makes their own choices with the information they have, and with the information we have right now HKM chooses the non-linear, ecological approach and utilizes the Constraints-Led Approach as part of the coach education and way of coaching students.

Non-linear Pedagogy

Non-linear pedagogy is an approach to teaching and learning that recognizes that learning is not always a straight, step-by-step process. Instead of following a fixed sequence of instructions, it allows for exploration, variability, and adaptation based on the learner’s experiences and environment.

Why Non-linear pedagogy

The main reason behind choosing a non-linear approach is just that, we are all dynamical, non-linear systems living and functioning in dynamic, non-linear environments, This means that we have to use a representative learning design do create affordances for the students to pick up on to learn to adapt to that non-linearity.

Training with a non-linear approach where the perception-action coupling is the central principle will allow the learners to achieve better function, bigger improvements, better retention and better adaptability to deal with unknown problems in a more efficient way (it might not always be as esthetically correct but function will always be the main priority in HKM).

My background

Together with my own experience as a coach I have been learning from my students, fellow instructors – HKM, KM, other systems, styles, sports, tactical activities … all the way to getting into the cage and choosing to compete in 3 professional MMA-fights to get experience in a field I had no experience in – discussions and talks with students, operators, instructors, coaches has lead to the changes that you can read about in this article.

The base of this is my own KM experience from 1994 to present day.
When I was active in Traditional KM (1994-2023) my personal style of teaching was based on a very strong belief in a linear Information Processing way, everything was a compartmentalized system where every little detail was important and repetition for the sake of perfecting the technique/movement pattern was the only way to learn and become efficient at solving problems.

Drilling technique for technical perfection without representative pressure was the main way of training in my sessions and very little time was spent on actual pressure testing and fighting.

With that I mean that the attacker attacks the defender with an attack that is known to the defender who then defends it without a lot of pressure and the attacker allows the defender to succeed with the technique. The instructor will most of the time then be there to find the technical mistakes in the performance and teach the correct angles and form to reach the ideal technique.

In my experience this way of training is representative of a big part of traditional Krav Maga training and the reasons behind that is that the linear system and methods are the main way taught to new instructors going through the instructor courses.

What is HKM

“Hybrid Krav-Maga is a highly efficient, learner-centered, non-linear style of fighting and self-defense with a base of Krav Maga and competitive striking and grappling systems, adaptable to any environment”

Already from the start and the first definition of Hybrid Krav-Maga the differences from Krav Maga was obvious and clear for me and the instructors/schools that joined HKM.

I do understand that the differences are not always that clear to others and therefore I would like to explain the main differences between HKM and KM.

The main differences between HKM and KM

The main differences is the approach to coaching and learning, this lays the foundation and mindset of the style and affects everything from coaching style to solutions of specific problems.

In Hybrid Krav-Maga (HKM) the main focus is a learner-centered, non-linear Pedagogy with an Ecological approach that uses the Constraints-Led approach to create adaptive problem solvers.

This is done by coaching them (using representative learning design) to learn to pick up on affordances and understand what has to happen to solve the problem and what function we want to reach instead of looking for “the perfect technique”. The reason for this is as I wrote above, our environment changes dynamically all the time and we have to adapt to that.

Traditional Krav Maga uses primarily an instructor centered, Information Processing approach that seeks to teach students to perform the perfect technique for each given problem.

In the table below you can see the comparisons HKM & KM based on the changes and differences that have been made and naturally emerged since HKM was born in 2023 (the idea of HKM started to grow way earlier than that but that is a different story)

Note: This article and list of differences is far from complete and may change over time as we learn and understand more in the realms of motor learning and skill development but I do hope that it gives you a starting point in understanding of what the differences between HKM and KM.

As I wrote above, this is a list of comparisons that set the foundation for our choice to adopt the approach we have today. The intention with it is to highlight and explain differences and nothing else.

You will find explanations for the different terms below the table.

If you read this on a mobile you might have to tilt your phone to see the full table.

	Hybrid Krav-Maga (HKM)	Krav Maga (KM)
Nature	A style/approach	A System
Adaptability	Adaptive/Open and changing based on research and experience	Locked, not changing or small changes
Philosophy	Progressive	Traditional
Foundational Attitude	HKM adopts the open style of Imi Lichtenfeld, “We learn from anybody”	Krav Maga as a locked system. “That is not Krav Maga”
Organizational Structure	Nonhierarchical “We all know and grow”	Hierarchical “This is how we do it”
Pedagogy	Non-linear	Linear
Theoretical Framework	Ecological Approach, CLA	Information Processing
Instructional Framework	Perception ↔ Actions (Skills) ↑↓ Affordances ↑↓ Constraints	Perception → Action (Ideal Technique)
Training Emphasis	Skill/function based	Technique based
Learning Focus	Skill adaptation – Invariant based coaching	Skill acquisition – Being taught “Do this”
Training Style	ECO/CLA based training	Traditional, Kata/Bunkai style training
Solution Diversity	Multiple solutions based on individual, task and environment	Single solutions that is said to “work for everybody”
Conceptual Understanding	Understanding by function, conditions and invariants through guided self-organization	Being taught “the ideal technique”
Individualization	Personal style	Conformity – one mold for all
Practice Methodology	Repetition without repetition	The perfect technique
Solution Source	Student & function based, solutions based on natural responses and attractors	System based solutions
Practical Application	Perception ↔ Actions (Skills) ↑↓ Affordances ↑↓ Constraints	Perception → Action (Technique)
Resistance Level in Training	Medium to live resistance	Low to medium resistance
Representativeness	High representativeness	Low representativeness
Contextual Realism	High Contextuality	Low Contextuality
Practice Orientation	Skill focused	Technique focused
Training Resistance Intensity	Medium to live resistance	Low resistance
Cueing/Coaching Focus	Primarily External cues	Primarily Internal cues
Coach-Student Dynamic	Pygmalion effect – Coach has high beliefs in learner capacities	Golem effect – Instructor knows and student does not
Attitude Towards Mistakes	Failure improves learning	Failure hampers learning
Educational Basis	Principle based	Method based
Learning approach	Function based on outcome	Function based on form
Promotion Evaluation of Effectiveness	Skill & activity-based promotions	Traditional grading (technical part + performance part)
Promotion Criteria	Progress & functionality	Technical & detail-driven
Rank Representation	Belt colors and Stripes	Grades with patches, some with belts
Student Progress	Skill & activity-based promotions	Linear. Learn and test level by level
Core Mentality	Fighting as base for Self-Defense	Self-defense as base for Fighting
Competition Philosophy	Competition helps self-defense	Competition hampers Self-defense mentality
Role of Sports for Self-Defense	Part of the learning, builds skills, helps self-defense	Not good for self-defense
Combat Foundation	Mixed, contemporary, integrated striking and grappling (modern way of Imis boxing and wrestling)	Compartmental and traditional striking with some elements of grappling.
Primary defensive sequence	Avoid→Attach→Attack Avoid→Attack Avoid/Attack Attachment or striking based on state of readiness and attractor state	Avoid/Attack Avoid→Attack Avoid→Attach→Attack A strong focus on early attacks and using attacks as releases. Primarily Striking & attachment
Defensive Tactics Diversity	Striking versions, attachment versions, grappling versions	Mainly striking and disengagement
State of readiness diversity	Active versions and Reactive versions	Mainly Active versions
Size-specific Defensive Tactics	Attachment or attacking as solution for smaller individuals based on the event. “Do what you can”	Striking and disengagement as a solution for smaller individuals.
Results	Adaptive problem solvers with focus on function	Technicians with focus on perfecting form

Explanations

Pedagogy

Linear Pedagogy emphasizes a structured, sequential approach where learning progresses step-by-step, often in a predetermined order. Coaches or teachers explicitly instruct specific movement techniques. Linear Pedagogy is clearly organized, sequential boxes leading from simple to more complex tasks in a single predetermined path. It focuses that a person has to learn things in a

Non-linear pedagogy emphasizes learner-centered, exploratory learning where skill emerges naturally through interactions with task, environment, and individual constraints. Multiple possible pathways toward skill development exist. Multiple interconnected pathways, allowing varied routes to learning. Learners can explore, adapt, and find individualized solutions.

Theoretical Framework

The Ecological Dynamics framework integrates principles from ecological psychology and dynamical systems theory to understand how skilled behaviors are acquired and adapted in dynamic performance environments.

Ecological psychology is a theoretical approach that emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between an organism and its environment. It posits that perception and action are inextricably linked, and behavior emerges from the continuous interaction between the organism’s abilities (action capacities) and the affordances (action possibilities) available in the environment.

Dynamical systems theory provides a framework for understanding how complex systems change over time. It recognizes that systems are inherently nonlinear, meaning that small changes in initial conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes. In the context of motor learning and performance, dynamical systems theory explains how functional movement patterns emerge from the interplay between various constraints (e.g., task, environment, and individual).

Constraints-Led Approach (CLA) for motor learning is a contemporary framework emphasizing how constraints shape skill acquisition and movement patterns. Developed from ecological psychology and dynamical systems theory, CLA suggests that motor skills emerge as learners explore and adapt within their environment, rather than simply through instructions or repetition. The Constraints-Led Approach, grounded in Newell’s Perception-Action Framework, views motor learning as an adaptive and self-organizing process driven by individual, environmental, and task constraints. This approach emphasizes exploration and adaptability over rigid instruction, aligning closely with ecological psychology principles and contemporary coaching methods.

Information Processing for motor learning is a classic framework emphasizing how sensory information guides the acquisition and refinement of motor skills. Rooted in cognitive psychology, the Information Processing model proposes that movements result from the systematic processing of sensory input through stages of stimulus identification, response selection, and response programming. This framework views motor learning as a cognitive process involving perception, decision-making, and action planning, driven by sensory feedback and deliberate practice. Unlike approaches that emphasize spontaneous exploration, Information Processing highlights structured progression, skill rehearsal, and conscious adaptation based on internal and external feedback, aligning closely with traditional coaching and instructional methods.

Training Emphasis

Skill is an external function that can only exist in a context! It emphasizes the individual’s capability to adapt to environmental constraints and accomplish goals effectively in a changing context. Think, dynamically blocking an unknown strike.

Technique is an internal motor pattern that can exist without context. It is focusing on the mechanics or execution strategies selected to achieve a specific task within certain constraints. Think of performing a Kata where every angle counts. Note: In Kata, the internal movements performed is the skill as the form is the context shaping the function of the movements by internal ques.

Kata is a Japanese term meaning “form” or “pattern,” referring to a pre-arranged sequence of movements practiced systematically in martial arts such as karate, judo, aikido, and others.

Bunkai is a Japanese term used primarily in karate, meaning “analysis” or “disassembly.” It refers to the process of breaking down kata (pre-arranged martial arts forms) into practical applications or self-defense techniques. Bunkai involves interpreting and extracting realistic combat applications from movements within kata. Practitioners use bunkai to understand the purpose behind each movement, transitioning from formal sequences to functional self-defense scenarios.

Representativeness

Representativeness is the extent to which conditions accurately reflect or maintain the essential properties of real-world environments and tasks.

Attractor state

Attractor state is a stable and preferred pattern of coordination or movement solution that emerges through self-organisation within the dynamic interplay of constraints.

Repetition without Repetition

Repetition without Repetition emphasizes repeatedly achieving task goals through diverse movements, fostering adaptable and context-sensitive skill acquisition.

The task outcome or goal remains constant, but the movements or actions employed are diverse. Athletes become more adaptable and resilient performers, prepared for diverse scenarios they might encounter.

Perception Action Coupling

Perception ↔ Action: Represents the continuous interaction between perceiving the environment and acting upon it.

Affordances

Affordances: Opportunities for action perceived from the environment that connect perception and action directly.

Constraints

Constraints: The individual, task, and environmental factors shaping and limiting perception-action cycles and affordances.

Contextuality

Contextuality implies that skill is never isolated or independent of the surrounding constraints and circumstances. It is always situated and shaped by the current context in which the activity occurs.

Self-organization

Self-organization (Guided) harnesses natural learning processes by strategically managing practice constraints, fostering skillful performance through adaptive exploration rather than explicit instruction.

Internal vs external Cues

Internal cues Instructions or feedback directing attention towards the athlete’s own body parts, movements, or sensations (e.g., “extend your arm,” “bend your knees”). This tend to encourage conscious, explicit control of movements, often leading to overthinking or restricted fluidity.

External cues Instructions or feedback directing attention toward the outcome or effects of movements in the environment (e.g., “hit the ball towards the target,” “push the ground away”). This encourage a focus on movement outcomes, promoting natural, automatic, and efficient performance.

Skill Acquisition vs Skill Adaptation

Skill Acquisition is Instructor-centered and primarily concerned with initial learning and development of a basic capability or coordination solution.

Skill Adaptation is Learner-centered and emphasizes ongoing adjustments and flexibility in existing skills to effectively respond to novel or changing situations.

Coach expectations

Pygmalion effect, also known as the Rosenthal effect, is a psychological phenomenon where higher expectations from coaches by high beliefs in the learners capacities lead to improved performance in the learners learning, confidence, motivation, and performance.

Golem effect describes how negative expectations from coaches, teachers, or leaders can negatively impact a learner’s learning, confidence, motivation, and performance.

Principle based vs Method based

Principle-based training prepares learners to handle real-world unpredictability, fostering problem-solving and adaptation.

Method-based training ensures consistency and precision, useful for mastering foundational or specific technical movements.

Representative Learning Design (RLD)

Representative Learning Design (RLD) is a framework aimed at ensuring that practice environments closely replicate key elements of real-world performance contexts. This approach facilitates the development of skills that are transferable to actual performance situations.