What are the best martial arts out there? MA that you could really use out on the street. I like Muay Thai and after seeing Ong Bak, I would love to learn this style. I found a close MA dojo by me, that teaches Southern Shaolin Style. Has anyone took Shaolin before and is it good?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Martial Arts
- Thread starter Bishman
- Start date
- Status
Invader Zim
Member
Aikedo(I can never spell that right) is a great form of defensive counter fighting.
warabi-mochi
Member
Aikido.
To be honest, don't go looking into any martial art just with the idea of it being something you can use on the street. Any martial art will help with that, especially if you stick with it. More because as you learn about timing and distance, as well as how to carry yourself, you should be able to avoid most conflicts.
Anyway, most martial arts will help you. It comes down to picking the one that you think will best match your personality. We have a lot of people that show up at my Aikido dojo because they're tired of the martial arts they'd previously trained in. They usually begin to get tired of the more violent aspects of martial arts and want to learn how to protect themselves without having to badly injure their opponent.
That said, we also have a lot of people who come in, sign up and take two or three classes. Then they complain that it's "too soft" and walk out the door looking for something that will immediately teach them how to beat people up better. Although, they never stay long enough to realize that you're softer with beginners so as not permanently damage them.
Either way, do some research first. If you have any questions about Aikido, since that's the art I'm currently training in, let me know.
To be honest, don't go looking into any martial art just with the idea of it being something you can use on the street. Any martial art will help with that, especially if you stick with it. More because as you learn about timing and distance, as well as how to carry yourself, you should be able to avoid most conflicts.
Anyway, most martial arts will help you. It comes down to picking the one that you think will best match your personality. We have a lot of people that show up at my Aikido dojo because they're tired of the martial arts they'd previously trained in. They usually begin to get tired of the more violent aspects of martial arts and want to learn how to protect themselves without having to badly injure their opponent.
That said, we also have a lot of people who come in, sign up and take two or three classes. Then they complain that it's "too soft" and walk out the door looking for something that will immediately teach them how to beat people up better. Although, they never stay long enough to realize that you're softer with beginners so as not permanently damage them.
Either way, do some research first. If you have any questions about Aikido, since that's the art I'm currently training in, let me know.
Invader Zim
Member
I'd like to take Aikido. We learn basic holds and counters for police academy, but I'd like to take a formal class.
Invader Zim
Member
A good wrestler can kick the crap out of a boxer. What's your point.
You don't box a boxer, you don't kick a kicker, you don't wrestle a wrestler. You need to be somewhat skilled in all areas to make yourself well-rounded.
You don't box a boxer, you don't kick a kicker, you don't wrestle a wrestler. You need to be somewhat skilled in all areas to make yourself well-rounded.
A boxer beat a martial artist??
Bwahahahaha!! No amount of twisting the meaning of your words is gonna make that statement right.
As if fists alone is ever gonna stand a chance vs fists, chops, kicks, knes, elbows, headbutts and intimidating 'wataa!!' noises.
Boxers have tried MMA before and didn't stand a chance. Even traditional karate and kung-fu styles dont hold up against the new hybrid styles.
Do a modern brazilian ju jitsu or some other hybrid style imo if you want to learn practical self-defence for the street (provided you arent up against multiple attackers, BJJ doesnt cope with that scenario well), but if its just discipline and conditioning then it doesnt really matter what you.
Bwahahahaha!! No amount of twisting the meaning of your words is gonna make that statement right.
As if fists alone is ever gonna stand a chance vs fists, chops, kicks, knes, elbows, headbutts and intimidating 'wataa!!' noises.
Boxers have tried MMA before and didn't stand a chance. Even traditional karate and kung-fu styles dont hold up against the new hybrid styles.
Do a modern brazilian ju jitsu or some other hybrid style imo if you want to learn practical self-defence for the street (provided you arent up against multiple attackers, BJJ doesnt cope with that scenario well), but if its just discipline and conditioning then it doesnt really matter what you.
Invader Zim
Member
Then say what you mean, don't mean what you say.
Evolution VIII
Banned
Well, if Pride Fighting or Ultimate Fighting is any indication, it doesn't matter what type of martial arts you practice, but instead how much stamina and endurance you have and how good you are. Case in point, Chuck Zito bitch slapping Jean-Claude Van Damme is always good for laughs.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
Bishman said:
I studied a shaolin style for a while and it was fascinating. My advice would be to observe the teacher as much as possible and how he interacts with his students. No matter what "style" you enjoy. The atmosphere and styles of communication there are very important to getting the most out of your practice.
warabi-mochi
Member
Heh, we just had a seminar here in Calgary for combat arts, including Steve Hiscoe(trains RCMP officers) a few people teaching mixed combat arts, someone who seemed to have about 8 or 9 different high level black belt rankings, and various others.
A lot of the stuff taught during the seminar was just common sense, while other large portions of it were largely useless. The guy with the huge number of dan rankings was rather comical. Wearing a purple belt OVER his hakama, and would clap and try and look zen-like at the audience after every technique. Hiscoe taught basic common sense for the most part. Very useful for most people, since the majority of people have never even been in a real fight, and usually get hit because they just don't consider the possibility that they might. Most of the MMA stuff tended to be somewhat worthless, especially in a street fight. MMA is basically designed around winning 1v1 competitions with various rules.
To be honest, any style, assuming you put a proper work ethic into it, and are patient with it, will allow you deal with people in street fights. Definitely do not go into a dojo expecting to come out a great fighter in a matter of weeks. Especially if you train in a more traditional style. Most senseis in such styles will say that someone who has trained under them, isn't ready to actually fight using the particular art until after they've reached their first black belt, and sometimes not even then.
A lot of the stuff taught during the seminar was just common sense, while other large portions of it were largely useless. The guy with the huge number of dan rankings was rather comical. Wearing a purple belt OVER his hakama, and would clap and try and look zen-like at the audience after every technique. Hiscoe taught basic common sense for the most part. Very useful for most people, since the majority of people have never even been in a real fight, and usually get hit because they just don't consider the possibility that they might. Most of the MMA stuff tended to be somewhat worthless, especially in a street fight. MMA is basically designed around winning 1v1 competitions with various rules.
To be honest, any style, assuming you put a proper work ethic into it, and are patient with it, will allow you deal with people in street fights. Definitely do not go into a dojo expecting to come out a great fighter in a matter of weeks. Especially if you train in a more traditional style. Most senseis in such styles will say that someone who has trained under them, isn't ready to actually fight using the particular art until after they've reached their first black belt, and sometimes not even then.
Actually BJJ experts and freestyle grapplers who can strike usually dominate Pride and UFC, the days of one-trick ponies like Tank Abbot are long gone unfortunately, he wouldn't stand a chance against the new school of MMA.
You really have to understand every facet of fighting to do well on the street or in an MMA fight and unfortunately sticking to any one traditional style just wont give you that kind of exposure.
You really have to understand every facet of fighting to do well on the street or in an MMA fight and unfortunately sticking to any one traditional style just wont give you that kind of exposure.
Fusebox said:
This is because most of the people that enter these ultimate fighting competitions are jobbers. no truely great martial artist would think about entering one of those silly competitions. The guys in those contests arent masters in their art. they are just brutes. (well, except for a few).
It's not the martial art you take, its the school you take it form. Do plenty of research on the head instructor and the "federation" or whatever he belongs to. Most taekwondo "shaolin" and karate schools out there are owned by two bit hacks. Dont be fooled by them! also most likely if they advertise "shaolin style" martial arts they are shitting you.
JackFrost2012
Banned
Aikido is a good suggestion. I'd also suggest Shorinji Kempo. Go for something that trains you and makes you better, not that teaches you how to beat the snot out of people.
But if you really want to kick the crap out of folks, then there's only one choice....
But if you really want to kick the crap out of folks, then there's only one choice....
JackFrost2012 said:Aikido is a good suggestion. I'd also suggest Shorinji Kempo. Go for something that trains you and makes you better, not that teaches you how to beat the snot out of people.
But if you really want to kick the crap out of folks, then there's only one choice....
tru that, gymkata has no equal!
also check and see if there is a Bai Ji Quan school near you
http://wutangcenter.com/wt/articles.html
sp0rsk said:
The first half of your post I disagree with, the second half is on the money.
Look, I love traditional martial arts, but it's such a cop-out to say "truly great martial artists wouldn't enter those silly competitions".
Actually, I feel I should disregard your entire post just for calling the sport of MMA "silly competitions".
Anyway, as for the original topic, since you did specify self-defence and effectiveness in what you are looking for, I would have to say that Muay Thai kickboxing, or Brazilian Jiu-jitsu have been proven as pretty much the most effective single martial arts you could take. Next, I would suggest that Judo, any solid kickboxing school, wrestling, or a good karate school.
Now, regarding the douchebag who said any boxer would beat any martial artist. You are completely ignorant. Yeah, a boxer will likely beat any recreational martial artist who trains in karate, or tae Kwon do, or aikido once a week.
But put a boxer against a kickboxer (who does leg kicks, not the paired down "American Rules"), or against a wrestler, or a Jiu-jitsu specialist, and the boxer will lose 90 times out of 100. This is fact. Boxers are the best punchers in the world, but there is so much more to a fight than punching. See how many clinches there are in a boxing match? All boxers know what to do in the clinch is wait for the ref to separate them. All a mixed martial artist has to do is get the clinch. Then a muay thai guy will knee the crap out of the boxer. Or a wrestler or Jiu-jitsu fighter will take him to the ground and punish him.
A kickboxer will just kick the crap out of the boxer's legs until he can barely stand.
If you honestly believe that boxers would wipe the floor with the serious practitioners of these styles, then you need to wake up and pay attention to the sort of athletes that some of these people are.
In fact, there's a perfect opportunity to do so. Both UFC and Pride are airing events this weekend. Watch one of them.
Boogie said:
I agree in principle and spirit, just minor nitpicks, though I think someone with your knowledge should know better than to say "This is a fact."; I am NOT in the "boxer owns all" camp, but...
First, I agree that any boxer you see in a MMA tourney is jobber. Because sport boxing has more rewards and less risk all around (fame, money, and health- well, depending on your class). If a person is a successful boxer they will not leave for MMA- unless they can't make it in the boxing world, in which case they're not really a good example then, are they?
Until MMA can provide the same risk/reward benefit of boxing, you won't see high caliber boxers in the "octagon".
On the clinch, I have to completely disagree. There's loads boxers can do loads before, in, and after the clinch... it's simply not sport legal. On the street, that's when you have to worry about a boxer's rabbit punches, throat strikes, elbows, headbutts, kidney punches, low blows, and throws. Particularly throws for kickers. I've seen many kick boxers taken out by punchers who hook under the leg, lift, then slam the guy to the ground. On the street, there's no ref to tell you to go to your neutral corner, that's when the soccer kick comes....
Put another way, a boxer that's allowed to use low blows suddenly becomes extremely dangerous.
Anyways, boxing was very much the original western NHB martial art from its bareknuckle roots (yeah, there was roman boxing before that, but that's a seperate evolutionary branch). Even in Dempsey's day, rabbit punches (strikes on the back of the neck) were still legal and a testament to smaller guys taking down much larger ones. If there's going to be a distinction between martial and sport kickboxing, then the same needs to be done for boxing.
Kickboxers have more weapons and are more well rounded for the ring, but on the street a boxer is no less handicapped (guess what, boxers can kick too!).
warabi-mochi
Member
It's funny, we actually have a school up here that defines that statement. Grand Master Simon's Temple Kung Fu. Nothing beats a training hall with pictures of the head of the school flying around with ninjas. They don't allow you to observe a class before signing up. You have to pay upwards of $200 for just six classes so you can begin to learn their 'secrets'. You'll probably never take a class from Grand Master Simon, because he's too busy counting his money.
Definitely pay attention the atmosphere inside the dojo. This will be directly related to the teacher and his students. You're going to be much better off training somewhere if everyone gives off a relaxed, comfortable feeling than one filled with a lot of stress, tension and competition.
I'm not sure why this is a cop-out, because it's true. I can't recall having seen a truly great martial artist in an MMA fight yet. Although if you want to argue about that, you may want to start a new thread. No point in derailing this one anymore than it has been.
DaveH said:
I agree completely.
On the clinch, I have to completely disagree. There's loads boxers can do loads before, in, and after the clinch... it's simply not sport legal. On the street, that's when you have to worry about a boxer's rabbit punches, throat strikes, elbows, headbutts, kidney punches, low blows, and throws. Particularly throws for kickers. I've seen many kick boxers taken out by punchers who hook under the leg, lift, then slam the guy to the ground. On the street, there's no ref to tell you to go to your neutral corner, that's when the soccer kick comes....
Put another way, a boxer that's allowed to use low blows suddenly becomes extremely dangerous.
I'll admit to exaggerating and trolling a little on my clinch comment. I know boxers have knowledge of clinch work, but I don't think it compares to that of the grappling arts, or even Muay Thai.
belmakor said:
I'm not derailing anything, I'm discussing.
I'll ask this then. Who are the "great" martial artists out there who you are referring to? And how, if they haven't fought in any competitions, do you know that they are great?
Look, I know that martial arts isn't all about fighting and proving who's the toughest. And that a great martial artist isn't the same thing as a great fighter. I'm just saying that how can you know that someone would win in an MMA-type competition if they've never competed in one?
It's perfectly fine to not have any ambition at competing in them, but you can't then just turn around and say that these people would clean up in these organizations if they chose to enter them.
From what I know, mixed martial arts is VERY BIG in Japan. Fighters are like celebrities there. I've even seen Pride FC's champ, Wanderlie Silva, take a photo opt with the Japanese Prime Minister. Furthermore, Pride has been throwing one Japanese fighter after another at Silva in hoping that a home favorite could take his crown and stop his undefeated streak. So if there's a superior martial artist in Japan, he should step up.
China is not big on mma yet so that is an interesting unknown.
Mike Tyson will be fighting in K-1 kickboxing soon, btw. The Japanese orgs have the money for top boxers. Tyson won't do mma cuz he knows he has no ground game and he knows he can be taken down.
This is Penn and Gomi (blonde) who are in the top of their weight class. Gomi is pretty popular in Japan and KO'd his last opponent in 6 seconds. Penn is just better.
belmakor said:
Okay, I completely missed this post before. First of all, its obvious that this guy was just a poser, and not a serious mixed martial arts instructor. If you take this guy as indicative of MMA training, then you are the fool.
But this quote cracks me up: "Most of the MMA stuff tended to be somewhat worthless, especially in a street fight. MMA is basically designed around winning 1v1 competitions with various rules"
That's a laugh and a half. MMA is designed for what works, period. In fact, the original UFC events had no rules, so that point is ridiculous. And so what if MMA is a sport where people fight 1on1, with rules. How does that make whatever you're training in more effective than MMA in a street situation?
Shouta
Member
You don't have to fight in competitions to be considered a great martial artist. You also don't have to be a great martial artist to be in compeititions.
That said, you "feel" that someone's great by the sort of posturing, reflexes, intent, and etc that they exhibit as they practice. Combine it with the focus they exhibit and etc. Sure, you can't tell but sometimes a feeling is more than enough. I had that feeling with my Sensei when I trained under him. Eventually, my sense were right. I remember my Sensei taking down three guys that tried to jump him for his money. I was totally floored at how fast and efficiently he just leveled them. Quick, composed, and easily adapted to how the situation was turning out and applied various techniques in various manners taught in the school quickly. It didn't even take him more than 4 connects to level one of the guys. At first I thought he was just another black belt monkey teacher who only participated in school sanctioned matches but I found out otherwise. =/
At any rate, what you see by combatants with martial arts styles in these competitions is merely a shadow of what most of the major martial arts have been. The application of techniques taught by the major schools have been lost because of the fact there isn't a necessity for learning how to fight with it properly. The Sensei I mentioned above taught me that one day when he showed the class that a lot of the techniques you see being used are merely an everyday version of the same combat techniques that were taught when the style originated. You won't be seeing many great martial artists these days because of that.
A lot of things are big in Japan, like Bob Sapp =p.
Asbel said:
More emphasis on how MMA is really a sport and not truly a NHB "street" fight. Though "taken down" Gomi is now in prime position to unleash extremely damaging fury upon Penn... but it's mostly illegal. Gomi's hands are tied because of thes rules of the sport.
http://www.pridefc.com/about/rules.htm
http://www.ufc.tv/learnUFC/rulesUfc.asp
MMA is not about what's street effective, for that, take a self defense or combatives course (better yet, carry a gun). MMA is sport and entertainment that happens have a some street effectiveness.
LOL, they like their circus acts over there.
I'm not sure what particular moves you mean here.
Of course, if you're defending for your life, there is no reason not to take a shot at the neck or crotch. I just believe mix martial arts is better than any one particular martial arts. Even Bruce Lee thought as much when he said study everything and keep whats best for you. Also, with mma you learn a mix of standing defense and positioning on the ground which helps you control what your opponents can throw at you.
Asbel said:LOL, they like their circus acts over there.
I'm not sure what particular moves you mean here.
his hands are free to rip his ears off. Among other things.
But in fairness, if rules were not an issue, it's probably unlikely that this takedown would have played out that way anyway.
warabi-mochi
Member
Wow, lots of stuff to respond to all of a sudden.
Well, probably because most of them have challenged/been challenged to fights. Just because they're not doing so inside a ring in an attempt at making money, doesn't make it any less valid. A lot of times fights just end up happening inside the dojo. People are usually competitive by nature, and invariably someone challenges someone else. Other times people just need to be humbled a little bit. It doesn't take much more than observation to realize who can really fight.
That being said, at a seminar I attended a few years ago I was lucky enough to be invited to go out drinking with the senseis after one of the classes. One of them when he was younger was very much worried that what he was being taught wouldn't be applicable in the real world. So he'd pick fights with dock workers just to test himself. Very few people I've met give off the same feeling as he does. He's over 60 now, and he's still easily the most powerful person I've ever seen. There's a large difference between training to compete in matches, and training to become a warrior, for the lack of a better term.
Yes, the guy with the purple belt and five hundred different rankings was a poser.
Most of us had no intention of watching him in the first place until we realized what comedy gold he was.
Hiscoe was definitely not. What he did do though was teach basic things for the most part, that if you at least keep them in mind, you can use in most "street" situations. Even things as basic as just stomping on someone's foot. You don't have to be pretty to win a street fight. He did teach more advanced things as well, but most of those were just the basic locks and holds you'll see police use. Although his tended to be much more effective through years of proper practice.
One of the combat arts people trained others for Rage in the Cage. Which I'll assume is like some sort of "minor league" for UFC, Pride, etc. Most of the striking he taught was pretty easy to see how it can be applied. Although, the same can be said for any art that has a focus on striking somewhere in it. Most of the grappling I couldn't see much of a point for. I can see how and why it works inside of the ring for a competitive match, but if I was in the middle of a bar brawl, or had some punks trying to cause trouble on a street corner, most of them would be the last thing I'd want to do.
Shouta is also very correct that most teachers no longer teach, and some probably no longer can teach, their arts in such a way as to be applicable in a real fight. In some ways they've been watered down so much that they're great for demonstrating with, but not so great for fighting with. Otherwise, I'd have to say that a "truly great martial artist" is going to be a dominating fighter, because he'll still have both sides of his style learnt. You can't be a great martial artist by leaving out the martial part of the art form.
Well, probably because most of them have challenged/been challenged to fights. Just because they're not doing so inside a ring in an attempt at making money, doesn't make it any less valid. A lot of times fights just end up happening inside the dojo. People are usually competitive by nature, and invariably someone challenges someone else. Other times people just need to be humbled a little bit. It doesn't take much more than observation to realize who can really fight.
That being said, at a seminar I attended a few years ago I was lucky enough to be invited to go out drinking with the senseis after one of the classes. One of them when he was younger was very much worried that what he was being taught wouldn't be applicable in the real world. So he'd pick fights with dock workers just to test himself. Very few people I've met give off the same feeling as he does. He's over 60 now, and he's still easily the most powerful person I've ever seen. There's a large difference between training to compete in matches, and training to become a warrior, for the lack of a better term.
Yes, the guy with the purple belt and five hundred different rankings was a poser.
Most of us had no intention of watching him in the first place until we realized what comedy gold he was.
Hiscoe was definitely not. What he did do though was teach basic things for the most part, that if you at least keep them in mind, you can use in most "street" situations. Even things as basic as just stomping on someone's foot. You don't have to be pretty to win a street fight. He did teach more advanced things as well, but most of those were just the basic locks and holds you'll see police use. Although his tended to be much more effective through years of proper practice.
One of the combat arts people trained others for Rage in the Cage. Which I'll assume is like some sort of "minor league" for UFC, Pride, etc. Most of the striking he taught was pretty easy to see how it can be applied. Although, the same can be said for any art that has a focus on striking somewhere in it. Most of the grappling I couldn't see much of a point for. I can see how and why it works inside of the ring for a competitive match, but if I was in the middle of a bar brawl, or had some punks trying to cause trouble on a street corner, most of them would be the last thing I'd want to do.
Shouta is also very correct that most teachers no longer teach, and some probably no longer can teach, their arts in such a way as to be applicable in a real fight. In some ways they've been watered down so much that they're great for demonstrating with, but not so great for fighting with. Otherwise, I'd have to say that a "truly great martial artist" is going to be a dominating fighter, because he'll still have both sides of his style learnt. You can't be a great martial artist by leaving out the martial part of the art form.
belmakor said:Wow, lots of stuff to respond to all of a sudden.
Well, probably because most of them have challenged/been challenged to fights. Just because they're not doing so inside a ring in an attempt at making money, doesn't make it any less valid. A lot of times fights just end up happening inside the dojo. People are usually competitive by nature, and invariably someone challenges someone else. Other times people just need to be humbled a little bit. It doesn't take much more than observation to realize who can really fight.
.
Fine, but MMAers have done challenge fights all the time, too. Heck, historically, that's what the Gracies were notorious for.
No disrespect to this man, but in trained vs. untrained challenges, of course the trained guy is going to win. Although I guess at this point I've kinda lost track of the specifics of what we're arguing over......
Actually, I must take issue with this point "There's a large difference between training to compete in matches, and training to become a warrior". Actually, I don't think there's that much of a difference at all. In one sense, the true "warriors" will test themselves by risking their safety and egos by stepping into a ring against another trained martial artist. Those who train for competition are every bit as much warriors, perhaps even moreso, than those who do not.
You're being too vague for me to adequately respond I think, but I'm just goin to flat out disagree. Grappling is all a matter of knowing when to use what, and it's more than simply the techniques. It's the live rolling to become an expert in knowing when and how to use the techniques, and more importantly, how to set them up in a real situation against a resisting opponent.
I had thought the effectiveness of grappling had been proven a decade ago, but if you want to dismiss it, so be it. If you can't see the point for it, that's your loss.
Biff Hardbody
Member
Wow, lots of good points here. I'll just go through the whole thing and quote points that I agree/disagree with. Its easier then just writing a whole big thing.
The best styles are Boxing, Wrestling, Judo, Sambo, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Kickboxing, and Muay Thai. There are some excellent Chinese Internal Martial arts and Japanese Ju Jitsu schools out there, but those are few and far between. Most Kung Fu, Comabtives, Tae Kown Do, Karate, and Japanese Ju Jitsu schools cannot fight. I say this as someone who has years worth of experience in Kung Fu, and moderate experience in Japanese Arts.
Arts like Boxing, Judo, Wrestling, BJJ, Muay Thai, and Kickboxing are generally "better" because they can actually put into practice what they do. The reason for this is simple, live training and a focus on competition. This forces the practicioner to do only what is practical for his art/sport.
Kung Fu, Army Combatives, Tae Kwan Do, Japanese Ju Jitsu, and Tae Kwan Do generally don't have live training against an uncooperative opponent. Because of that, there is a high amount of self delusion amongst practicioners of these arts. Many believe they never have to compete or fight, and that their techniques are so potentially devastating they can defeat world class athletes in a matter of seconds with little to no effort. There is a tremendous lack of common sense in these arts.
That is not to say that the sport arts are without their flaws. The problem with a sport art is that there are rules. Generally, if you take a practioner of a sport art out of their element they have a hard time adjusting. Examples of this can be a boxer dealing with a wrestler grabbing his legs. In boxing, this would not be allowed and a ref would break it up. In reality, the boxer who depends on his boxing rule would be taken down to the floor.
Likewise, a Wrestler or Judoka who found themselves in a vunerable position might simply turtle up. That's fine in their sport, but in a real fight with striking it is almost comitting suicide. I won't even get into knives involved with grappling, well maybe I will a little. I've seen grappling teachers in Sambo teach to hold the knife close to your body, and grapple with the opponent. I don't mean to bash, but that is utterly rediculous and could get you killed if your opponent twitches the wrong way.
Another problem/plus with sport arts is that there lacks something esoteric you find in arts like Kung Fu. Both styles require tremendous individual dedication, but there is something different about the two. This is hard to explain, but if you've done both types of training under serious teachers you'll see there are benefits from each side of training.
I practice Chinese Internal Arts (Tai Chi, Hsing I, and Ba Gua), Boxing, and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. I also grapple any style I can when I have a chance. All of them offer something. In the end, it isn't so much styles as it is systems of training that dictate practical self defense skill.
Not to get off tangent, but I believe mental and spiritual training is a huge aspect that is neglected in martial arts today, on both sides of the sport/no sport camp. Mentality, posative imagination, and will power are all very powerful tools for self improvement as a martial artist.
My advice to you is to use common sense in your search for a martial art. If you go to a Kung Fu school, and the teacher is fat and out of shape, his students are weak and they claim they defeat wrestlers and boxers with eye gouges and groin kicks while they practice countless Kung Fu forms, you are in the wrong place. However, if you find a Kung Fu school, and the emphasis is on body mechanics and power cultivation through breathing and other methods you may have found a great place.
With live training arts like Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Boxing, Wrestling ecd, you ussually don't need to be as cautious because the proof is in the pudding. You still should use commons ense though, because there is a huge difference in learning sport grappling to free fighting grappling. And remember, even in these arts there are frauds. Good luck.
While I don't agree with this broad generalzation, and using Jean Claude Van Damme as an example of a martial artist is hardly fair, there is a fundamental truth to this man's statement. If you get into martial arts, I cannot overemphasise conditioing and power training. There are different types of conditioning and power training, but you must have some type if you will be good. Technique alone will do you no good.
Your right, at the same time I think many people mix things without getting a strong enough background in one style. I believe when you have a fundamental base, you are better of building upon it with other things. I'm not preaching in style purity, but I am saying one shouldn't be a dabbler.
Good post. I don't want to get into the whole boxing VS grappling affair, but I will say that I feel boxing does not get enough credit. Having full contact sparred with mostly pure boxers who can hold their structure, I have tremendous respect for them. I took my man down, but I took some seriou shsots that have left me hesitant to just shoot in on anyone I meet again.
I think you have a different perception then others on what a martial artist is. There's nothing wrong with that, and I don't mean it in a sarcastic way. I think many people still have the idea of the old Kung Fu master in the movies who can wave his hands and make young, big strong men fall down. Even in history, people read about master like Morihei Ueshiba and Wang Xian Zhai and believe they would mop the floor with the current crop of todays fighters.
One can argue that all day long, it gets you nowhere. I'll just relate a story. One of the people I trained with was the best Asian martial artist/teacher I've ever met in the flesh. He was an old, small man who spoke broken English and could kick the shit out of me whenever he wanted to. I saw him "play" with much bigger, younger men (by play I mean a fight that is friendly or under special rules), and easily handle him.
It was easy to get drunk on his power. For me, he was the closest guy to the stories about the masters of old. One day, a young kid blurted out to him "Could you beat Mike Tyson!?!?!!!?". He looked at the kid and said "No. Even though my technique is at this level, he's way to strong. He'd take whatever I had and then kill me with a hit". People forget about common sense. Strength and size, youth and aggression...these are very powerful factors.
I don't believe MMA have the best fighters in the world. I don't think there is any such thing. There are some incredibly bad motherfuckers in the wrestling room, jail, or in the dojo. I think the situation dictates the best fighter. That being said...
This man is correct. The "fight" with the least amount of rules (MMA) is the one that will help you the most for a real encounter. I'm not arguing if your a successful MMA, you will defeat anyone in a street encounter. But, you will be much more prepared then some man who just theorizes in the comfort of his school.
The best styles are Boxing, Wrestling, Judo, Sambo, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Kickboxing, and Muay Thai. There are some excellent Chinese Internal Martial arts and Japanese Ju Jitsu schools out there, but those are few and far between. Most Kung Fu, Comabtives, Tae Kown Do, Karate, and Japanese Ju Jitsu schools cannot fight. I say this as someone who has years worth of experience in Kung Fu, and moderate experience in Japanese Arts.
Arts like Boxing, Judo, Wrestling, BJJ, Muay Thai, and Kickboxing are generally "better" because they can actually put into practice what they do. The reason for this is simple, live training and a focus on competition. This forces the practicioner to do only what is practical for his art/sport.
Kung Fu, Army Combatives, Tae Kwan Do, Japanese Ju Jitsu, and Tae Kwan Do generally don't have live training against an uncooperative opponent. Because of that, there is a high amount of self delusion amongst practicioners of these arts. Many believe they never have to compete or fight, and that their techniques are so potentially devastating they can defeat world class athletes in a matter of seconds with little to no effort. There is a tremendous lack of common sense in these arts.
That is not to say that the sport arts are without their flaws. The problem with a sport art is that there are rules. Generally, if you take a practioner of a sport art out of their element they have a hard time adjusting. Examples of this can be a boxer dealing with a wrestler grabbing his legs. In boxing, this would not be allowed and a ref would break it up. In reality, the boxer who depends on his boxing rule would be taken down to the floor.
Likewise, a Wrestler or Judoka who found themselves in a vunerable position might simply turtle up. That's fine in their sport, but in a real fight with striking it is almost comitting suicide. I won't even get into knives involved with grappling, well maybe I will a little. I've seen grappling teachers in Sambo teach to hold the knife close to your body, and grapple with the opponent. I don't mean to bash, but that is utterly rediculous and could get you killed if your opponent twitches the wrong way.
Another problem/plus with sport arts is that there lacks something esoteric you find in arts like Kung Fu. Both styles require tremendous individual dedication, but there is something different about the two. This is hard to explain, but if you've done both types of training under serious teachers you'll see there are benefits from each side of training.
I practice Chinese Internal Arts (Tai Chi, Hsing I, and Ba Gua), Boxing, and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. I also grapple any style I can when I have a chance. All of them offer something. In the end, it isn't so much styles as it is systems of training that dictate practical self defense skill.
Not to get off tangent, but I believe mental and spiritual training is a huge aspect that is neglected in martial arts today, on both sides of the sport/no sport camp. Mentality, posative imagination, and will power are all very powerful tools for self improvement as a martial artist.
My advice to you is to use common sense in your search for a martial art. If you go to a Kung Fu school, and the teacher is fat and out of shape, his students are weak and they claim they defeat wrestlers and boxers with eye gouges and groin kicks while they practice countless Kung Fu forms, you are in the wrong place. However, if you find a Kung Fu school, and the emphasis is on body mechanics and power cultivation through breathing and other methods you may have found a great place.
With live training arts like Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Boxing, Wrestling ecd, you ussually don't need to be as cautious because the proof is in the pudding. You still should use commons ense though, because there is a huge difference in learning sport grappling to free fighting grappling. And remember, even in these arts there are frauds. Good luck.
While I don't agree with this broad generalzation, and using Jean Claude Van Damme as an example of a martial artist is hardly fair, there is a fundamental truth to this man's statement. If you get into martial arts, I cannot overemphasise conditioing and power training. There are different types of conditioning and power training, but you must have some type if you will be good. Technique alone will do you no good.
Your right, at the same time I think many people mix things without getting a strong enough background in one style. I believe when you have a fundamental base, you are better of building upon it with other things. I'm not preaching in style purity, but I am saying one shouldn't be a dabbler.
Good post. I don't want to get into the whole boxing VS grappling affair, but I will say that I feel boxing does not get enough credit. Having full contact sparred with mostly pure boxers who can hold their structure, I have tremendous respect for them. I took my man down, but I took some seriou shsots that have left me hesitant to just shoot in on anyone I meet again.
I think you have a different perception then others on what a martial artist is. There's nothing wrong with that, and I don't mean it in a sarcastic way. I think many people still have the idea of the old Kung Fu master in the movies who can wave his hands and make young, big strong men fall down. Even in history, people read about master like Morihei Ueshiba and Wang Xian Zhai and believe they would mop the floor with the current crop of todays fighters.
One can argue that all day long, it gets you nowhere. I'll just relate a story. One of the people I trained with was the best Asian martial artist/teacher I've ever met in the flesh. He was an old, small man who spoke broken English and could kick the shit out of me whenever he wanted to. I saw him "play" with much bigger, younger men (by play I mean a fight that is friendly or under special rules), and easily handle him.
It was easy to get drunk on his power. For me, he was the closest guy to the stories about the masters of old. One day, a young kid blurted out to him "Could you beat Mike Tyson!?!?!!!?". He looked at the kid and said "No. Even though my technique is at this level, he's way to strong. He'd take whatever I had and then kill me with a hit". People forget about common sense. Strength and size, youth and aggression...these are very powerful factors.
I don't believe MMA have the best fighters in the world. I don't think there is any such thing. There are some incredibly bad motherfuckers in the wrestling room, jail, or in the dojo. I think the situation dictates the best fighter. That being said...
This man is correct. The "fight" with the least amount of rules (MMA) is the one that will help you the most for a real encounter. I'm not arguing if your a successful MMA, you will defeat anyone in a street encounter. But, you will be much more prepared then some man who just theorizes in the comfort of his school.
Shouta
Member
It depends on your definition of the two. To me, training for competition is different from training to be a "warrior". To me training for a competition is learning how to combat a person by familiarizing yourself with his techniques and then adapting your own to combat it. Training to be a "warrior" would be learning how to fight in general and learning how to apply your own techniques to adapt to any situation you may face. I think that you face the former a lot more in this day and age rather than the latter.
I have a few things to say about grappling but that's a big, long, and ugly argument I really don't want to get into. =p
Biff Hardbody
Member
You flatter me, Boogie. By the way, I'm going back to Renzo's at the start of July. Going to spend the summer training there, at least. Should be fun.
Shouta
Member
There's a reason why these martial arts styles developed and that was to fight. However, unlike a lot of other ones, these evolved with the modern culture and become less and less a combative art. To say that Karate or Japanese Jujutsu or Tae Kwon Do can't fight would be ignoring the evolution of the practice as it is now. I mentioned this in my previous post but a lot of martial arts that are taught widely are "watered down' or stripped down to focus the mind and body for the practioner rather than to fight.
Yes, you're right in that because these arts don't have you training against a live and uncooperative opponent doesn't train the average practioner to fight. However, it's unfair to compare the combative form of one art to the docile form of another which is what you're doing. Ignoring the fact that these arts have since evolved to be practiced as a mental and physical conditioner is an insult to the history of these arts, some that have gone back hundreds of years.
Won't get an argument from me about this
.I don't know about original poster but for me, a true martial artist is one that understands their style and knows that living rigidly by it will be the end of your career. A true martial also understands that a martial arts style is merely a set of guidelines of how to guide your body to fight the way you want. Simply following the punch or kick structure or following the techniques shown to you doesn't make a martial arts master. It's the one that understands the underlying principals behind the martial arts and what fuels it now and in the past.
Shouta said:
I don't think it's unfair at all. If the current state of these martial arts are taught in a watered-down fashion so as to make them less effective, than that must be acknowledged. It does no good to say that because they have a rich and long history that they should be immune to criticism of being ineffective.
Biff Hardbody
Member
I don't really understand your point here. I agree, these arts could fight at one time or another. How else would they have come to be? What I am speaking of is the "now" though. I wish I had a time machine so I could travel back and learn with some of these men I read about just to see what they were all about.
I do believe there are great practicioners in these arts, but generally speaking the systems are incredibly weak by todays standards. I am quite sure that the founders of these old styles of Kung Fu were incredibly bad ass pieces of real estate, there's to many stories for there not be some truth.
And, my own experience shows me that there are some highly capable martial artists in these styles. At the same time, if we are speaking of the dominant styles of today there can be no arguing of what they are.
If I could compare the combative side of sport arts like wrestling to the combative side of an art like Aiki Ju Jitsu, I would. Unfortunately, I haven't met an Aiki Ju Jitsu practicioner who can fight. I hear Don Angier is fantastic, but he is very old. Before him was Sokaku Takeda, and if half the stories are true he was a bad man. The thing is, where are their students? This is the case with many non sport martial arts styles.
If you say to me "Well, the arts have evolved into something different today", that's fine. Just don't call them martial arts. Call them physical and mental self help. Call them something else. Just don't call them something that gives one the idea they are fighting systems. Because the way they are practiced today, they are not.
I shouldn't have to run around and worry about why these arts are no good today. The fact is, they aren't producing many fighters of worth. Some would say any, but I wouldn't. You have to understand, Kung Fu, Karate, Tae Kwan Do...these are the laughing stock of many in the martial arts world.
I don't see how I'm insulting anything. If you read many of the words of old martial artists like Wang Xian Zhai, or even really old men like Musashi they complain about this stuff to. I'm not as great as these men, nowhere near it. It was a different time back then that helped forge a different type of martial artist all together. But, certain truths in the martial arts world remain the same. One of these is self delusion.
I think the ones who insult these arts are the practicioners of today who masquerade as effective fighters in fancy gi's and do nothing but talk about their so called combat effectiveness. They bring shame down upon their martial arts, misfortune to their students, and humiliation to the martial arts world in general.
For me, I see a martial artist as one who can understand the principle as well as put it into action. That can mean all facets of life. For the man who can only fight and not live successfully, I would not call him a martial artist. At the same time, I would not call someone who lives successfully, yet cannot fight a martial artist. Martial and Art. I must be able to fight, and I must be something more then that. Otherwise I'm just a fighter, a pretender, or a dabbler.
So is Shaolin practical out on the streets and is it usefull as boxing or muay thai?
Here is the website: http://taysonnhan.com
Here is the website: http://taysonnhan.com
karasu
Member
I've been training for 21 years now, and please, do not believe any of this hype. There is no such thing as a best style (it's probably already been said). I love MMA as much as the next guy, but these are athletes and their results are not indicative of what you shouold personally expect. Rickson Gracie can win as many competitions as he wants to, it doesn't mean you'll beat the dork down the street if you train under him. You do not have his mind, his history, his thought processes, etc etc etc. The best way to find a style that would work for you is to try a few out. It'll all depend on you, and how much you put into it. What advantages and disadvantages you have going into it, and most importantly your mind. If you're inflexible, do not try Tae Kwon Do, if the thought of grappling while on the concrete does not appeal to you, do not put all of your energy into a grappling art, if you aren't willing to put alot into it, do not stick with Shaolin. There are no easy answers here,this shit doesn't happen over night. A style is just at tool, what matter is how YOU personally adapt to it. Just because Krav Maga throws rapid fire elbows and knees, does not mean it will be effective for you.
WTF does "MMA is the style with the least rules" even mean? That's an empty statement. Competitions have rules, not styles. For example a primary tactic of Wing Chun is eye gouging, throat strikes and things of that nature. If you're willing to dismiss this just because you don't see it in competition, you're a fool. In fact all traditional stytles are primarily for attacking Vital Areas. No competetions allow this, and no competetions should. Competition is about sport, and it'd be ridiculous to break a guys knee with a low kick to win a competetion. The sportsman way is to get him in a leglock and give him the oppurtunity to submit. The streets are a totally different animal. I'm not saying that they'd walk over MMA fighters in the street or anything childish like that. I'm saying that they are apples and oranges. All claims of superiority should be seen as nothing more than a marketing campaign to bring the noobs in in droves. It shouldn't be the point of legitimate discussions on the Martial Arts. Unless your style makes you impervious to all attacks thrown by all attackers from any one system, you too can get your ass wiped. So kill the noise.
WTF does "MMA is the style with the least rules" even mean? That's an empty statement. Competitions have rules, not styles. For example a primary tactic of Wing Chun is eye gouging, throat strikes and things of that nature. If you're willing to dismiss this just because you don't see it in competition, you're a fool. In fact all traditional stytles are primarily for attacking Vital Areas. No competetions allow this, and no competetions should. Competition is about sport, and it'd be ridiculous to break a guys knee with a low kick to win a competetion. The sportsman way is to get him in a leglock and give him the oppurtunity to submit. The streets are a totally different animal. I'm not saying that they'd walk over MMA fighters in the street or anything childish like that. I'm saying that they are apples and oranges. All claims of superiority should be seen as nothing more than a marketing campaign to bring the noobs in in droves. It shouldn't be the point of legitimate discussions on the Martial Arts. Unless your style makes you impervious to all attacks thrown by all attackers from any one system, you too can get your ass wiped. So kill the noise.
Shouta
Member
I wholly disagree. You can try predicting the winner of a car race based on car stats but that ignores everything else that goes along with it including the driver, the pit crew, the weather, and etc. You can say that these arts are ineffective by looking at how its taught now but you're ignoring the full potentail when you consider all the aspects.
My beef (or Biff if you will
) is that while these styles have evolved differently now, it still doesn't mean it's ineffective as a combative art. I read your post and that's the message I got from you. I don't think that's the case. I think all the martial arts forums are effective but judging the art by the general practioners doesn't do it justice especially in a day and age where combat is not something we need to worry about on a daily basis. To judge a style, you need to look at the very best that it can produce and not the average person. I wouldn't go into a Muay Thai training area and judge the style using the beginners and intermediates as a model. In every tall-tale, there's just a little bit of truth
. You won't get any complaint from me here. You're right they're not the dominant styles. There's a lot of stuff we could go into about that but that's also another thing we can save for another time.
Yeah, it doesn't surprise me that they're considered the laughing stock but at the same time, I honestly don't think anyone has stepped up to the challenge of understanding them and taking them beyond the conceptual training level. That's a bit of a digression though and that's a whole other thing we could get into.
I think you misunderstood me. When I said you insulted these martial arts, I meant when you said that they were ineffective styles of combat. I agree with you that there's a lot delusional fools out there that parade around like they're king of the world. However, I think it's insulting to say that the style, in its history, is ineffective. If you had said, "I think Karate, Tae Kwon Do, and etc as they are taught today is ineffective as a combative" I wouldn't have jumped on you but you talked about the style itself and not the period.
Like I said, I agree with you but that wasn't the point I had a problem with.
Bingo. A lot of people would be surprised how many different things you can find in Karate from strikes, to weapons, to holds, to throws. Some of the Karate techniques that aren't taught actively would normally kill someone -_-.
- Status