The best martial art is one that enables the student to develop as a complete human being for the remainder of the student’s life.
As far as fighting goes, that’s almost always a last resort. And it’s not the martial art, it’s the martial artist who wins the fight. The style is immaterial.
Then why is adding a grappling component to a fighter’s toolbox so important in mma tournaments?
Paraphrasing one of the Gracies, the ground is easy to get to, so you had damn well better be good at fighting there.
When I was younger I used to practice the most ancient martial art of all. That of the “bar brawl”. It emphasises the creative use of chairs, other furniture, bottles and bystanders. Victory usually goes to the one who throws the first punch or uses the dirtiest tactics such as testicle grabbing, throat poking or hair grabbing. Also being less drunk than the other guy is of great importance.
There is no best martial art, as no martial art places equal emphasis on all ranges of fighting. Thus a martial artist who only knows one style will be weak in at least one or two ranges - both in technique and knowledge of what to expect from someone strong in those ranges.
Ninjutsu seems most efficient to me…
** Glitch**, nice post! I agree with your results. If weapons were involved, I would put Kali at first, but again, just barely over Shaolin. I would also emphasize Shaolin over Kali b/c of the endurance training emphasized in Shaolin.
As for catching kicks and stuff, I’ve seen demonstrations in Korea and I have been in tournaments in Korea (TKD) where shoulders were dislocated b/c of the force of the kick. Watching it on tv, it doesn’t look that fast, but it is much faster than it looks and given the circumstances quite intimidating. And, I also have been taught grappling techniques (though not much ground fighting). The TKD artist is dangerous when he decides to kick low and break your leg, much like a muay thai artist who would gladly trade hits to get a chance to break your ribs.
Overall, the best martial art (if there is one) is one that emphasizes endurance, body hardening, forceful striking and some type of effective ground fighting. Sadly, I don’t think there is one that does all that today. It’s best to diversify at this point. 
Which style one adopts matter much less than experience with that style and others.
What makes a particular martial art effective is simply that it is a PLAN.
When you use a “style” you are selecting not a single move but a whole series of moves performed in rapid succession. With further training you learn to adjust those series to changing circumstances during the fight.
Whcih particular style is less important than the ability to adjust and follow with a new pre-programmed series.
These “katas” are exactly what makes a given martial art effective. The more familiar you are with an oponents style and the less familiar he is with yours the better.
Simple boxing can be just as effective as any martial art simply because it also depends on combinations and series to take advantage of openings.
Some martial arts offer additional knowledge like physiology and such and that is of course useful but such knowledge is not restricted to any one style.
Pre-planning and strategy.
Thats is what every martial art is about.
lawboy: I’m glad you enjoyed my post. It really shouldn’t be taken with too much seriousness. In fact, my intention was really to show how silly it is to try to draw comparisions based on style. You’ll notice much of my analysis comes down to who would statistically win, and the completeness of the style in question. As you say, quite correctly, a good martial art is one that blends all of the necessary elements together. Your martial arts is a chain it is as strong as the weakest link.
The whole striking vs grappling “debate” is amusing if it weren’t for the seriousness with which some people take it, and the regretably wrong path some people take dues to myths or, in some cases, lies.
You question whether there is any martial art that emphasizes all that you believe are the elements of an effective style. And the answer is yes. Many modern schools are teaching blended styles, as I noted in my post. The lines between styles is getting more and more fuzzy. This is good for the martial arts and martial artists. It will result in some people becoming more and more defensive about the “true” way, but this cannot be avoided and has always been a problem, at least in the modern era, and being somewhat of a student of human nature as well, my educated guess is that for all time as well.
Welcome to the boards, btw.
The best way to learn to protect yourself is to be in full contact confrontations without rules.
Nothing gives you confidence like disarming a guy who is swinging a bat for your head, taking him down, and then having him prone while you sit on his chest and pin his arms with your knees.
Martial arts can’t teach you that. Being in good shape, knowing the basics, and having good survival instincts do. If you’re in a martial arts class with hugeass pads, in non-street clothes, on a padded floor with different rules on what you can and can’t do, it’s a pillowfight that won’t teach you anything useful. It’ll get you in shape though.
Also, “Karate’s History and Traditions” is a good book with a lot of martial arts history in case you’re interested.
conczepts: You might consider reading
“The Truth About Self Protection” by Massad Ayoob
“Real Fighting” by Peyton Quinn
or really any book on scenario based training. You can learn exactly what your speaking about in a martial arts class, just some don’t teach it. Two different beasts.
Quint Essence:
Your analysis of kata is quite mistaken. Kata and/or “one-steps” do not translate to street fighting well, and in fact, are often a step backwards because they teach the same technique vs. the same technique by repetition. This creates the wrong instinctive memory and results in decreased reaction time under adrenal stress. Kata is a useful tool for learning technique for the exact same reason, nobody would deny rote learning as being powerful, but not as useful for its application.
It doesn’t take a study of adrenal stress or modern self defense concepts to see this. Examing the role of kata in the history of martial study shows this. For example, the Shaolin used kata as part of their exercise and then became again a teaching tool as time progressed. The samurai typically would practice their skills on live targets either through traditional sparring or in some extreme cases on prisoners. The samurai would use form-based learning to teach the student proper formal technique to later learn to be applied. A study of martial history for other arts will reveal the same thing. The phenomenon of using kata as an application tool is largely a modern one and Japanese one, other martial arts have started to follow suit. It appears to have started in either the late 1800s or early 1900s, although some might argue that the practice may have even been in place when the Dutch and Spanish visited in the 1600s but nothing I’ve read indicates this since the Dutch and Spanish werely largely uninterested in the martial arts of the “barbarian” races.
Just a plug for my thread but if you have any martial arts questions I have a thread on IMHO titled “Self Defense Questions” where I’m answering questions on martial arts or self defense.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=229646&highlight=Glitch
Not sure how to make that look prettier.
[nitpick]
Sambo didn’t exist in AD 1680. It was developed during the early 1920s by V. Spiridonov, who combined judo with several indigenous styles of wrestling.
[/nitpick] The earliest historical reference to capoeira is 1770, so that one is probably out as well.
And which styles of jujitsu and/or Shaolin are you referring to? Classical jujitsu is very different from BJJ, which is based largely on Fusen-ryu and kosen judo. And Shaolin is more a category than a style, to distinguish “external” arts like hung gar and choy li fut from the “internal”, chi*-based styles like hsing-i, ba-gua, and tai ch’i ch’uan.
Regards,
Shodan
As always, nice post Glitch.
The one thing that I haven’t seen here, but could have missed, is talk about what a ‘real’ situation is. A lot of talk about the effectiveness of grappling, etc. seems to imply a one-on-one fight. A duel, as it were. Unfortunately, I have never seen a duel. My experience in life has shown me that rarely do two people get angered at one another and decide to ‘step outside’ and deal with each other using fisticuffs…Nope, in my life I always see one guy with about four friends behind him starting a fight with another guy. Sometimes it will be six on three (in a pub, between two groups of friends) or some other mis-matched exchange. But never a ‘fair fight’.
Anytime a ‘fair fight’ starts to happen, other people step in, girlfriends drag their boys away, bouncers come by, strangers break it up, etc. There might be one or two punches thrown, but nothing remotely resembling a true contest of skill where one MA can be used against another MA.
This is where I have a problem with grappling in the ‘real world’. I have studied BJJ and Shootwrestling and feel I am the better for it, but I would never want to actually have to use it in a real fight because a real fight means that I am not able to walk away, and that means I’m being jumped by a few guys. The LAST thing I want to do is go to the ground when there is more than one opponent. And, like I said, there will always be more than one opponent (especially if one considers that you should always be able to walk -or run- away from a one-on-one situation). In the real situation grappling is going to benefit me by landing properly and getting back up so I can run away.
The most useful aspect of grappling that I have found is that it makes it easier for me to break up a fight. (Well, actually, learning how to fall has saved my life a few times) I have bounced door and have needed to subdue someone from attacking another person, but he wasn’t attacking me directly and I was able to tie him up before he knew what was happening.
Other people’s experience might be different. Maybe ‘fair fights’ do happen to y’all. I have simply never seen or experienced it since 10th grade 15 years ago. YMMV, but I want a very aggressive, devastating, heavy on the martial, light on the art, style when it comes to defending myself.
This is where I have my moral problems with weapons. I don’t believe that a weapon fight will be a duel, but I do see the logic in knifing an opponent or two or three so I can get away, even if they are un-armed (which is very illegal, but when faced by multiple opponents and possibly protecting my wife and child, I think I’d like to take my chances in the courtroom, not the streets). But, that is a problem that I have yet to make up a clear decision on. Until then I will do as I have and study MA (currently Thai boxing), keep in shape, avoid dangerous situations and walk away. It has served me well for the last 18 years, I think it will serve me well into the future.
-Tcat
Shodan:
Thanks for the nitpick, I like it when people keep me on my toes!
Capoeria. Granted the earliest recorded history is 1770; however, the slave trade to Brazil started in the 16th century. It seems likely then that it was developed sometime between 1549 and 1770. So, I decided to include it because it is in the right time frame roughly.
Shaolin. In the era specified the Shaolin temple was essentially still pretty distinct and unified. The Shaolin way had begun to spread to the layman in the late 1500s; which, prompted the Shaolin to start making their studies more secretive in the 1650s. However, the genie was out of the bag so to speak and it was in the 1700s and 1800s that real diversification started to show up. I suppose I could have choose Northern Shaolin vs Southern Shaolin, but I don’t see enough different to warrant it.
Sambo. Uhh… yeah. Kind of screwed that one up.
Jujutsu. There is no confusion there, I specified it was that used by the samurai so it would be classical. Phew, at least I got that one right.
Tomcat: You’re quite right. You’ll notice my post avoided that whole landmine and assumed a duel.
For me, based on what I teach and on my background, I always assume a fight against a violent criminal. My background is in personal security and personal self defense, so it is a natural way for me to think. Different tools for different missions. Grappling, for example, is a bouncer’s best friend because it neutralizes the opponent letting him get him out of the establishment with leaving little physical damage that can result in a lawsuit for the bouncer or the establishment.
My advanced class is about ready to start (I can hear them warming up) so time for me to go. I’ll be back in an hour or so. queue evil laugh
Glitch: Sorry, but I disagree. IMO you cannot learn in a classroom how to think effectively and safely, and fight fear in a real situation where your opponent has a baseball bat and is swinging full-strength at your head. There are people who “freeze up” in a fight and don’t think properly, because of fear, no matter how good a martial “artist” they are.
This cannot be taught. You have to be IN the situation before you can say for sure how you will respond. No matter what belt or rank you have in the dojo, you have no idea how you’ll do on the street until you get there.
You can disagree all you like; however, this is great debates and not IMHO.
Do you have any evidence that scenario based training (SBT)does not work? I don’t know of any body working in the field of self defense who has studied SBT who says it doesn’t work.
Quite right, even if the rest is wrong.
Anybody who has been to school knows that you don’t know how you’ll do on that math test until you get there, that doesn’t mean you should study you math and do your homework, or would you subscribe to that philiosophy?
Do you know what SBT is? Do you know how it works? Do you understand the psychology and physiology behind it?
Some good books and Examples:
“StressFire” by Massad Ayoob
“Real Fighting” by Peyton Quinn
“The Gift of Fear” by Dr. Gavin deBecker
“Problem-Based Learning, Vol. 1” by John Barell
“Defensive Shooting for Real-Life Encounters: A Critical Look at Current Training Methods” by Ralph Mroz
“Security Training” by Patrick Kane
The police train for shoot/no shoot situations by using SBT. Nobody is saying that this kind of training will create a desired result in the real thing but it does help. Their own internal studies have shown an increase in the correct decision at crunch time.
The RCMP have a mock town in the police academy so that students can respond to mock calls.
The military, every single one of the in NATO and likely in the world, train using SBT. They typically call them wargames. The military has found an increase in proper use of miltary force by conducting wargames.
I have trained my own security professional using SBT. I’ve seen them use it in defending our clients.
Bodyguard schools use SBT.
Although not self defense related, air traffic controllers train using SBT.
I can continue if you wish, but there is case after case of SBT be effective in developing the proper abilities to be able to respond to violence.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Because again I know of nobody who is saying that SBT doesn’t work except for those who don’t know what it is.
I think my last post didn’t really convey what I meant (other than the part you quoted). Let me just say that most martial arts schools (IMO) are just that-art, and are not effective for teaching people how to protect themselves in a streetfight.
Just because I haven’t seen any places with effective SBT doesn’t mean they don’t exist, I admit. But the SBT I have been exposed to, talking to other martial artist friends, was typical, and also a complete joke and waste of time. Someone grabs you from behind, drop into a horse stance, and elbow them? If someone grabs around your waste, wouldn’t that mean they’re a huge guy who is much stronger than you? Why would he hold you limp-wristed, allowing you to drop into your horse stance in the first place? Those elbows you throw to an opponent behind you from a horse stance are REALLY weak, especially if the guy is wearing a leather jacket or something.
Stuff like that, is what I have found to be the “typical” martial arts SBT-some specific technique that the guy teaching it to you probably has never done, that can potentially backfire on you.
I will concede that Krav Maga and that Korean Martial art (the one descended from body guards where you train in street shoes?) sounds very realistic and legitimate SBT-wise. (BTW my baseball bat example, in case it isn’t obvious, is something that I had to survive through)
-A disenchanted martial artist
conczepts,
Simple common sense is useful in MA training. The truth is that you only get better at what you practice. While it’s true that nothing’s exactly the same as “being there”, the closer to “real” your practice is, the better prepared you’ll be. There’re reasons why the practice of practicing has such a lengthy and world wide tradition. It is very helpful to practice.
A number of instructors who want to develop and promote sincere MA practice and practices offer different types of classes to fit different types of needs. Many people I’ve met who take an MA class do not want the whole shebang. They’re happy with a certain level of practice. I suggest that you find one of the schools where there’s the possibility of more “vigorous” practice.
Another crucial element is conditioning. It is essential to find a place that emphasizes the many different things that come under the heading of conditioning. Can’t very well have the “more vigorous” practice w/o “more vigorous” conditioning.
ps
Be warned that some instructors take it upon themselves to insert their students into real life “situations.”
I’m neither condemning nor condoning this practice here.