This question came up in the back of my mind after seeing “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (which by the way is as awesome as the critics have built it up to be) tonight.
Which martial arts style is the best? From the reults of the Ultimate Fighting Championship and other reality fighting tournaments, it seems those that can combine striking ability with grappling usually come out on top.
Right now, I’d say Gracie-style Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu seems to have over the years proven to be a consistent winner, though Ken Shamrock’s Lion’s Den style fighters have been awesome as well.
No matter what, it seems that the ability to get your opponent into a choke or crippling hook on the ground is essential to success. To win a fight standing will work only if you are fighting another combatant that lacks ground technique.
Yet, for all the science I know for a fact a lot of guys in professional wrestling of all professions . . . while maybe not the most fanciful fighters in the world seemed to know enough dirty tricks (the finger to the eyeballs comes to mind) to keep themselves from a serious ass-whoopin.
By the way, just a warning to all of you sissy boy would be tough guys out there. Keep the debate in my thread civil, or I’ll Kung-fu it right down your panty waist throats!
(Sorry Moderator- have to enforce SOME discipline around here!)
Until someone dies, I will not accept doing well in some sort of “Ultimate fighting” show as a viable excuse… apparently they aren’t allowed to cripple or kill, which removes most of what I learned in Kuk Sool Won…
I think it all depends on what you’re looking for.
Mayhaps it should be catagorized a bit.
Most physically challenging.
Most combat-oreiented.
Most “Street” effective.
Most “Combat” oriented.
any other categories?
[sub]I do not consider street and combat the same thing. True artists should get that… not that I’m a true artist, but my teacher was.[/sub]
That Ultimate Fighting nonsense does not have any really talented fighters.
I’m a bit biassed, but I’d say the best is probably shorinjuryu karetedo, which has been practiced by Japanese samurai for millenia. The techniques are simple, straightforward and powerful (though less simple than shotokahn).
[sub]
I reserve the right to misspell Japanese words in my posts![/sub]
This question comes up alot, and the answer is always the same. There is no such thing as a best martial arts style, at least in relation to self protection. The keys to self protection do not lie in the technique but rather primarily in the ability of the defender to deal with adrenal stress. Therefore, it is vital how you train and what you train for, but not what you train. Practically, any martial art can be effective (keeping in mind that most martial arts are very similar technically these days with the main difference being the emphasis on one thing over another, and some differences in ideology) if it encompasses what self protection needs to be: fast, explosive (overwhelming), powerful and simple (understanding adrenal stress will tell you how important this last is).
All of these things are highly reliant on the instructor and not the intructor’s style. Some karate schools are very watered down, others are very hard core, even of the same style! The same is true for BJJ, TKD, Kung Fu, whatever you like.
The only I will say style-wise is this. As a student you are better served practicing a style that covers the most topics as possible. Striking, grappling and to some degree weapons.
While at it, let me add the following question for the assembled panel of experts to consider:
A freind of mine (who is more familiar than myself with these matters) once told me that all martial arts are overhyped, and that they offer only a marginal advantage over an experienced streetfighter. He said they would offer a huge advantage only over someone who was unfamiliar with fighting altogether. Is this true?
Egads, I hope it doesn’t have to come to that to impress you! Fortunately, UFC type events are the closest legal, public, and videotaped display of what fighting discipline is the best. I will submit many of them are too watered down due to regulation and PPV company protests, however reality fighting/Vale Tudo/UFC is the closest you can get to street fighting situations (though I think there was a Mexican TV show where guys went around looking for fights and videotaping it).
With all due respect, I’m not 100% sure you would want to step in the octagon to find out.
You are right, you are not allowed to cripple or kill. But the original UFC had only three basic rules: no eye gouging, and no biting. Yes, apparently low blows were allowed. I remember a brutal fight where one of the fighters had the other in the ground, and continually punched him in the sack until the other guy said uncle!
Now, thanks to sissy boy athletic commissions, there are rounds, the combatants wear gloves, and it is not the same.
Many of the fights end by submission, which is where you put your opponent in a CRIPPLING hold, and if the other guy does not tap pout, he will get a broken limb. Or a choke, which if held long enough, can KILL you.
You aren’t allowed to cripple or kill your opponent in UFC, thank God, but that sure as hell does not mean Royce Gracie couldn’t do it if he had to!
Would you however agree that the mental prowess of an individual will develop along different paths depending on which style they follow?
Do you consider that a person with a genteel nature might be more suited to a non contact pattern oriented style rather than a competition focused full contact one?
I may be missunderstanding you but I infer from your statements that you believe there is little differnece between the arts in terms of the end product they produce …that it rather depends on the person who signed up ?
Quite possible, quite possible. (I’m sure I don’t care what they’re all about, so it would make sense). Nonetheless, I do have this question, as mentioned. Can I take your post as confirmation?
You need look no further than Tank Abbott to see what a “tough guy” can accomplish. (And I disagree with friedo’s dismissal of the full contact participants as “not talented fighters.” It is true that NHB makes no attempt to solicit the highest “masters” of various martial arts and pit them against each other. But that shouldn’t take away from the ability of those who choose to compete.)
If what you mean by “streetfighting” is that someone has been in, and has survived, a number of violent fights, well, yeah, I guess it makes sense that he would bring something to a conflict. And one advantage he would have is that his “art” does not stress “nonconfrontation.” Going in, he has no qualms about taking it to the final conclusion.
But consider this, who has how large of an advantage between a streetfighter and an untrained individual? Thug, by a HUGE margin, right? So if you will say MA training evens the odds somewhat, or even gives some small advantage as your friend concedes, well, that isn’t worthless IMO.
What many people who do not train MA (and many people who train certain styles of MA) do not seem to understand, is that fighting is a really ugly business. I can “win” a fight, and still incur severe injuries in the process. And then there are legal repercussions. (Oh, please don’t trot out the “Rather be judged by 12” tripe!) There is no such thing as a “no-risk” confrontation.
The Gracies are a phenomenal group. As are the Machados, and a number of other BJJ men. Our academy gets a lot of input from Megaton Dias and Gustavo Dantas. But, we also train judo and shootfighting. Gustavo doesn’t limit himself to BJJ. He trains out of John Lewis’ academy. If you train only BJJ, your grappling ability lacks what you can gain from wrestling (freestyle and GR), sambo, and shootfighting. And street confrontations do not necessarily take place on a nice padded mat as in the octagon. You may be less eager to drop to the floor with an opponent when the “floor” is a gravel alley with broken glass. Or if your opponent has a weapon. Or a buddy with steel toes he is eager to plant upside your head as you mount his pal and go for the submission.
And if you do not know how to strike and how to defend against strikes, you may not have the ability to take the fight to the ground. Yes, it is phenomenally difficult to keep a worldclass wrestler from shooting in on you and taking you down. But most streetfighters are not worldclass wrestlers. And what is your goal? To be tied up with this thug and make him cry “Uncle”? What do you do when you are in this dark alley, on the ground, with this baddie in an armlock? Or is your goal to inflict enough pain to give yourself the opportunity to run away?
So, what Glitch said, you have to be able to defend yourself in all situations. If I were to narrow it down, however, I would suggest that the best way to skew the odds in your favor in life or death situations is to carry a knife/knives and learn how to use it/them. And in anything less than a life or death (or certain injury) confrontation, give the attacker what he wants.
Izzy, Damhna will have to explain for him/herself what they mean. But I’ll offer that people can pursue the MA for a number of different reasons. Some folk can attain “Black Belts” while developing relatively limited actual fighting ability. Certain arts stress personal discipline, essentially meditative and philosophical goals, over any real world “fighting” ability. Any “system” that has rules, is at somewhat of a disadvantage against someone who does not respect those rules. That is not to say it is not worth studying.
Myself, I did not seek philosophy or spiritual growth from my art. I merely want to be the most effective fighter I can be. And guess what? The spiritual growth came anyway!
And yeah, NHB contests have rules. We are not in the times where gladiators participate in fights to the death. But in many cases (and not all NHB contests are equal) the goal is to pare down the rules to the extent possible to most closely simulate combat. How successful they are is open to debate.
It was not my intention to imply that MA are worthless. It’s just that the impression one gets from many pop-culture portrayals of the various MA are that they contain some mystical secret methods that enable one practitioner to destroy hordes of thugs. My friend disputed this, and I was surprised at his claim. His point was (and you seem to confirm) that the MA are in essence training people in fighting techniques that are comparable to what one might well learn from experience. This is not to say that they don’t have alot of value for someone who does not wish to go through the “experience” (or any other value, as suggested by Damhna). Merely to correctly understand what they are in relation to other techniques. As this thread seemed to be about similar matters, I thought it might be appropriate to confirm this with the experts who are participating.
Don’t confuse “streetfighter” with “a participant in a fight”. The drunken lout in a bar is not necessarily an effective fighter who knows how to injure you while minimizing his own exposure.
Also, many people can achieve relatively high rank in certain martial arts, without developing significant ability to defend themselves in a realistic manner. And, IMO, many people who study MA develop a self impression of ability far earlier than they actually develop an equivalent degree of ability.
Our school refers to difficult opponents as “evolved fighters,” whether they developed their ability on the street, in a dojo, or in a gym. Think of the entire universe of potential opponents. What percentage do you believe have any practical fighting experience or formal MA training? I suggest it is a relatively low percentage. Of the fighters and martial artists, how many have more than a very rudimentary amount of experience? And what is the likelihood that you will run into this select group?
We tend to speak of street thugs/violent criminals as opportunists, similar to predators seeking out easy prey. So you tilt the odds in your favor by anything you do to make yourself not appear to be an easy target - at every step of the encounter, from the situations you place yourself in, the way you appear walking down the street, the level of awareness you project, how you respond to the initial visual or verbal confrontation. All of this happens before a single blow is thrown. If you get this type of awareness out of your MA study, you are ahead of the game. If, instead, you get a sense of invincibility, you are likely headed for a fall.
Both the mental and physical type of a person should play a part in choosing what art would be best for them.
**
If you consider the end product as being capable of self defense (I didn’t want to presume that the OP’s reference to “kicking ass” wasn’t defensive in nature. A good sensei will take care of that wrongful use of terminology. ) then yes, the end product of any martial art is the same. How effective that self defense is depends on how good the training was, how talented the person is at using it, how much experience the person using it has in actual situations, verses the same questions for the attacker.
I basically see any arguement about one style being better than another as ultimatly fruitless. One style might be better suited for one person than another style but this does not mean that one style is better than another.
I have sparred with many Tae Kwon-Do folks and never met any that impressed me in their fighting ability very much. Does this mean that that art is inferior to my Shotokan? No, the ones I sparred against had less experience than I. I was impressed with their spirit and felt that they would soon grow better at their art. If I sparred a senior Tae Kwon-Do master I have no doubt he would have felt the same way about me.
**
[/QUOTE]
I’m biased, but I’ve always considered Muay Thai to be the most effective (upright) fighting method I’ve ever seen. However…It’s not the moves that makes it a deadly way to fight (although the moves are extremely powerful and simple). It’s the training methods. It’s the fact that the fighters spend hours and hours every day punching, kicking, shadowboxing, sparring, and fighting, in addition to special diets, weight routines, running, etc. It’s the determination of the student and the rigorousness (rigorosity? :D) of the training that makes a dangerous fighter. Just like the way a finely crafted gun in the hands of somebody who doesn’t know how to shoot is useless, No matter how fine the techniques of a martial system, if the practitioner isn’t properly conditioned and trained, it makes no difference.
The bottom line is that (as Glitch and a few others already pointed out) you don’t fight the style, you fight the fighter. Above a certain level of competence and skill, all styles (of similar type) start to look more alike, because what works (the meat), works and is kept and refined. What doesn’t work (the fat) is cut away and discarded.
Dont think so. IIRC, karate was formalized as a martial by Gunikochi Fijin, who was Okinawan. Traditionally, the Japanese have had great contempt for Okinawa. The “empty hand” techniques were a peasant response to the Tokugawa shogunate’s making any possession of a weapon illegal except by the samarai.
The samarai were utterly uninterested in weaponless combat, due to thier maniacal devotion to the sword. If you don’t have a sword, you ain’t a samarai, if you lost it, you have no right to defend yourself.
IMHO, the samarai were the single most utterly narcissistic and useless upper class layabouts ever foisted upon an agrarian populace. And the competition for that distinction is tough!
I’ve heard about an “Israeli” martial art that is supposed to be particularly deadly. Well, I don’t know if it’s deadly or not, but I heard about it from two separate friends (who don’t know each other), each of whom had seen a demonstration of it. It was supposedly developed by the “Israeli defense force.”
What struck me was that both of of my friends described it with exactly the same phrase – both said, with a wry shrug of the shoulders, that it was exceptionally “goal-oriented.” [One of them, by the way, is a black belt in karate.]
So what’s the skinny – anybody got the low-down on this mysterious and deadly style of fighting?
) then yes, the end product of any martial art is the same. How effective that self defense is depends on how good the training was, how talented the person is at using it, how much experience the person using it has in actual situations, verses the same questions for the attacker.