Try turning on your TV. Style v. style fights have been televised since 1993. Sports styles win every competition, regardless of the ruleset. Every time a “lethal” martial art has gone up against a “sport” martial art, the “lethal” martial art has lost.
Now, “lethal” martial artists make lots of excuses for this. They claim that they’re constrained by the ruleset, or unwilling to really hurt their opponent. But there have been no-rule fights (and I mean no rules, no referees, no judges); some of these have been honor fights, and some of these have been recorded. You can find them on Youtube if you really care.
For example, this black sash kung fu practitioner claimed that he could use his deadly techniques to beat any “sport” stylist in a genuine no-rules fight. He had faith in his eye-gouging, ball-kicking techniques, and he put up $5,000 of his own money that he could beat any sport martial artist. He lost in under a minute, and shortly after this fight (after he got out of the hospital) he abandoned kung fu and started studying BJJ.
Krav Maga is a joke. It’s 90% hype and 10% crappy kickboxing. “Optimized for the battlefield?” People on battlefields have guns. If you care what soldiers train, you should know that US Marines study a variant of BJJ. Also, a few Navy Seals trained BJJ with me when I trained in San Diego. I used to beat them pretty easily and joked with one guy how easily I could kick Navy Seal ass. His response? “We generally just use guns”.
So, if I understand you correctly, if your martial art consisted of punching yourself in the face and you fought a different martial artist whose style consisted of punching his opponent in the face, the winner would be the guy who spent the most time perfecting his style?
That’s obviously nonsense, so obviously the style matters.
Damn, should have put this in my original response, but Judo became famous when, in 1886, it went up against jiujitsu in a series of matches to determine which style would be practiced by the Tokyo police. Judo won between 12 and 15 of the 15 matches, showing the superiority of the sport style of training.
These weren’t competitions in the sense we think of them today; at least one (and as many as three) competitors died (all were jiujitsu stylists), and Judo was adopted by the Tokyo police as a clearly superior style to jiujitsu.
That was in 1886 and people still don’t realize the superiority of “sport” training methods? What will it take?
Vale tudo or anything goes fighting was popular for a while in Brazil before sanity set in and a few ground rules enabled the emergence of MMA. But for a time in Rio de Janeiro the main 2 competing schools were Brazilian Ju-Jitsu (Gracie) and Luta Livre which is a form of submission wrestling.
Now all that’s from wikipedia. But unless you can show that Luta Livre Vale Tudo consistently dominated and argue that it’s more sport than ju-jitsu -a problematic argument- then we have at least one example of the a ju-jitsu style holding its own at the very least. At most we could learn what training methods naturally emerge from the most brutal contests (usually) short of murder.
I was unaware of the Judo example (unsurprisingly, to be quite honest). I’m curious to know whether its dominance was chalked up to Judo being a more modern and innovative style (which it was in the 1880s) and how much was credited to the sport style of training. Regardless, it’s an interesting case study.
ETA: Now I’m confused. Evil Economist repeatedly references BJJ (Brazilian ju-jitsu) approvingly. But -er- that’s a form of ju-jitsu, right? If you’re saying that the best ju-jitsu schools blend in sports-style training, then I’ve frankly lost track of the thread.
As for the marines, since they usually use guns (and planes and ships and radios) I would think that the ideal training method in this context would consist of an afternoon’s class in unarmed combat, sort of like an elective. It wouldn’t surprise me if somebody who has been practicing one recognized martial art or another for a couple of years could beat them under conditions favorable to their style.
No, BJJ isn’t a form of jiujitsu, despite the name. It’s a form of Judo, and it’s trained in the sport style.
ETA: Judo was a specific subset of jiujitsu. Kano took out all the “deadly” moves, leaving moves that could be practiced at full strength against resisting opponents. At this point there was a paradox; the less-lethal style of Judo produced better fighters than the “lethal” style of jiujitsu. This was because the ability to practivce the moves at full strength against resisting opponents made them usable in a fight. The “deadly” moves in jiujitsu couldn’t be practiced at full strength (unless you were willing to kill your training partner), and the inability to train made the moves unusable in a high-stress situation.
The difference between boxing, judo, BJJ, wrestling, etc. (the sport styles) and the “deadly” styles is that the sport styles could be trained at full strength against resisting opponents, and this made them more usable.
Martial arts is a generic term that in that context means ‘fighting arts’. This includes boxing, wrestling, judo, karate, etc. It’s any formalized style/system of fighting. Anybody that trains and is in decent shape stands a better chance that if they weren’t but it doesn’t guarantee a thing. For instance, if you could be cloned into an exact double one of which was trained in anything and you not, my money would go on your trained double every time.
When it comes to the street or the ring it depends on a whole lot of factors. Size for sure just because a 150 man is going to have a hard time with a 250 lb. man who is equally trained and in shape. However, there was a now defunct organization in Japan called Pride, which was the equivelant of the UFC. A famous fight took place between huge 300 lb. guy and a little 150 lb. guy and the little guy won on technique by arm bar.
Some styles lend themselves to street fighting more than others. Believe it or not, the most effective martial arts you can learn is good old American wrestling. Most fights end up on the ground and the guy with the most skill in that area has a decided advantage. Boxing is the most commonly used in America when you are standing up. Take you average guy who windmills and turns his head a lot and put him up against a Golden Gloves boxer and watch what happens.
Any training helps more than it hurts as long as you try to avoid unnecessary shit and don’t get cocky.
This is an excellent point. I teach martial arts classes to beginning students, and sometimes ask a class to raise their hands if they’re interested in self protection. Then I ask them to raise their hands if they have working smoke detectors in their homes.
As I understand it, the primary purpose for modern militaries to train their soldiers in non-gun martial arts is not the expectation that they’ll actually use them on the battlefield (if that happens, you’re already screwed), but to develop aggression in their soldiers. And I see no reason to assume that the best style for developing aggression would be the most useful one in an actual fight.
That’s interesting. It seems kinda back-door to me, but I’ve never had any military combat training. I’ve been around Marines a lot though, and the idea does seem to fit. I was told by a Marine officer that the reason the inspecting officer grabs the Marine’s rifle is because he (and now she :)) isn’t supposed to give it to anybody. Not that a Marine would ever bullshit a Sailor.
Put up someone trained in Taekwondo (for example) against someone trained in BJJ (for example). One of them has five years training, the other has twenty. Who wins the majority of the time?
My money is on the twenty year man for obvious reasons. And notice that I did not say which style he trained in.
The BJJ practitioner, which is why all those UFC fighters study BJJ and not Taekwondo. Oh, if you’re curious, these kind of fights have happened, and the BJJ practitioners won.
Ask yourself if your logic holds up at all. If one high jumper uses the fosbury flop method and the other high jumper uses the scissors-jump method, are you going to declare that the jumping style they’re using doesn’t matter, only who’s practiced more?
Back to martial arts, are you going to claim that the only reason these guys aren’t kicking ass and taking names is that they haven’t spent enough time practicing their style?
Seriously, what is it about martial arts that makes people’s logical facilities shut down?
What **Clothahump **and others have said: it’s not primarily about the particular martial art, it’s the individual, and their experience and condition. Muscle memory is important too.
New York newspaperman Jimmy Cannon wrote a column in the mid-1960’s about two muggers who tried to rob a gray-haired man in a suit who had just gotten out of a cab.
Thirty seconds later, both muggers were on the ground, refusing to get up until the police (called by the cab driver) arrived.
I’m going to disagree with you there. I would think the point to teaching non gun based fighting is just a part of training to get the soldier into shape. Not to be dismissive here, but you don’t really need to be in that great of a shape to defend yourself. Frankly the entire point of fitness for the soldier is to ensure that you can run 3 miles and still fight with the energy like you’ve only ran 1.
This entire silly debate about which martial art is best is complete hog wash. It’s not a matter of what style is the best, rather it’s the one that best applicable to a situation.
For example: some bum pulls a knife on you in the alley wanting your wallet. Do you:
Use that newly learned eagle death claw technique?
or two, just give him the wallet, it’s not worth dying over it.
Personally, I would pick choice two.
That is not to say that I’m not “trained.” I’ve had TKD experience, and studied Bukti negara, and still my option is that even when confronted with a situation like that, one ought to consider the lesser violent option if at all possible.
I think i read a while back there was 5 step program used to diffuse a volatile situation, just forgot what the name of it was.
That’s a great story, and should be in Cecil’s column.
However, it would only be a story about how the martial art doesn’t matter if the gray-haired man had been Omar Sharif and Jack Dempsy had been one of the muggers. I’ll want a re-write on my desk by 10.
