Poll: Which is better in self defense?
- Thread starter fluffylandmine
- Start date
Recommended Videos
seconded.JinxyKatte said:
Krav Maga wins. Go learn it, because I am come January.
P.S. Krav Maga is why the Jews Pwn.
I truly wish the Western, mainly English, martial arts hadn't died out in the presense of guns. In my opinion, most people are likly to find that the martial arts their countrymen and ancestors, who are presumably most like them due to a similar cultural and social setting, are better for them. Rather than having to deal with say, taoism in the case of tai chi which is utterly alien.
All we have left that's our own invention (well, Roman) and not weaponised is boxing. Which is actually pretty damn great.
But the martial art itself is utterly unimportant, it's only the practictioner that matters. Were Lennox Lewis or Frank Bruno around and in their prime, I'd give 1/100,000 odds on them vs any of you, because they'd make paste of you unless your a certified master of your martial art via that martial arts homeland. Unlikly, seeing as more or less any Westerner that went to say, Thailand to do muay thai would be pasted by 8 year olds. Not to mention the fact you're all here, reading this, instead of training.
Longstory short, go DO a martial art instead of talking about it, because not one of them is better than any other. Although I will tell you a trade secret about the best martial art.
Come closer and listen.......
IT'S THE ONE YOU INVENT YOURSELF DUMMY
Everyone's different and assuming you have the intelligence, after learning ANY martial art, you should be adapting it for your own personal use. Are you really so naive as to believe that the orginal 5ft4" chinese person that invented it would have created the exact same forms and moves if they were 6ft4" instead?
You're a lost cause if you do.
Allow this video to enlighten you to the truth. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8VdXHy5Do1U
No Jackie Chan bollox from Englishmen.
All we have left that's our own invention (well, Roman) and not weaponised is boxing. Which is actually pretty damn great.
But the martial art itself is utterly unimportant, it's only the practictioner that matters. Were Lennox Lewis or Frank Bruno around and in their prime, I'd give 1/100,000 odds on them vs any of you, because they'd make paste of you unless your a certified master of your martial art via that martial arts homeland. Unlikly, seeing as more or less any Westerner that went to say, Thailand to do muay thai would be pasted by 8 year olds. Not to mention the fact you're all here, reading this, instead of training.
Longstory short, go DO a martial art instead of talking about it, because not one of them is better than any other. Although I will tell you a trade secret about the best martial art.
Come closer and listen.......
IT'S THE ONE YOU INVENT YOURSELF DUMMY
Everyone's different and assuming you have the intelligence, after learning ANY martial art, you should be adapting it for your own personal use. Are you really so naive as to believe that the orginal 5ft4" chinese person that invented it would have created the exact same forms and moves if they were 6ft4" instead?
You're a lost cause if you do.
Allow this video to enlighten you to the truth. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8VdXHy5Do1U
No Jackie Chan bollox from Englishmen.
Taking self-defense to mean avoiding combat then running away is more appropriate than any martial art which being an art of war involves killing the opponent as its primary focus.
All martial arts are codified systems to allow the less physically adept to overcome more physically adapt individuals "cunning defeats any strenght" therefore no martial art is greater than another as due to the phyisical make up of a particular fighter will be different not every style will be effective.
no matter what way you look at it the better fighter wins not a cookie-cutter game of rock,paper,scissors
All martial arts are codified systems to allow the less physically adept to overcome more physically adapt individuals "cunning defeats any strenght" therefore no martial art is greater than another as due to the phyisical make up of a particular fighter will be different not every style will be effective.
no matter what way you look at it the better fighter wins not a cookie-cutter game of rock,paper,scissors
Some men, when enraged to an absurd enough amount or partaking of drugs/stim packs, do not respond to groin kicks. It just doesn't register with them fast enough to be effective, sort of like how you tend not to feel cuts and pain when your adrenaline is going. I'm not arguing the effectiveness of Krav Maga as a martial art, but I'd MUCH rather snap my opponent's arm off than kick his groin and hope for the best (ideally, a groin kick or rip would be included in the package, but I wouldn't rely on it). Groin kicks are also absurdly easy to block when you know they're coming.inu-kun said:
Yeah, martial arts have a lot of unnecessary moves, but there are things (like basic anatomy, and how to break things on said anatomy) that you can't learn many other places. Besides, Krav Maga isn't the "best" because it uses the opponent's strength against him. MOST good martial artists, regardless of style, know how to do this. Oh, and Aikido, Judo and Tai Chi are designed (to a fair extent) around this principal. Also, most good martial artists get down to the rough and rugged when faced with a serious threat. You really think Bruce Lee would have been using high kicks in a REAL mugging?
There is no "best" martial art, and there is NO "best" technique to use in a real fight. Whatever you have, you use. Whenever you can cheat, you do.
Well, the only one's I've practiced are Aikido and Shorinji Kempo, going on for seven years in total, but I'd still have to say that discussion of this is meaningless...
Krav Maga has been mentioned; it is good for war, not self defence. Krav Maga instills an attitude to fighting which is incompatible with civilian self defence. If you are well enough trained in Krav Maga to use it in an unanticipated fight then you will seriously injure somebody. If you do this in the streets or at a bar or club you are a criminal. That's not good for self defence...
Brazilian Ju-Jitsu has been mentioned; it is good when you don't have to worry about being beaten to death by somebody's mates. BJJ presumes and plans for every hand to hand fight going to the ground. If you are grappling somebody on the ground you are unable to avoid additional assailants effectively. That's not good for self defence...
Systema has been mentioned; it is not a martial art any more than Kung Fu or Silat is a martial art. 'The Russian System' is a label applied to a set of diverse combat martial arts and non-combat awareness and tactical systems. Kadochnikov's System, which appears to be what the video with the russian instructor and the marines is showing (though it could be Ryabko's System or even R.O.S.S, we don't see enough to tell), is often claimed to be very effective, but it's another combat focused art. In a real fight you will probably hurt people. It's less brutal than Krav Maga, apparently, but that doesn't make much difference in an unexpected fight...
So far, nobody has mentioned Parkour; it's probably the very core of option three on the poll. David Belle put together the basics of Parkour with the emphasis on total efficiency. The slightly ludicrous scenes in the newest James Bond movies are not Parkour, they are freerunning. Parkour doesn't look pretty, in fact it often looks rather ugly, but it is intended to be the trained technique of getting as far away from something as fast as possible. You want self defence? Being several hundred metres away and the other side of a 10' wall would be a pretty damn effective defence, but you need to be able to start moving away from your assailant. In an unexpected fight you've still got to find or create the opening to run. That's not good for self defence...
If you want to defend yourself you must seek to put yourself into a position in which you are not going to be attacked. Most martial arts are very clear about that point. Some of them do it by breaking the other person, some do it by disabling them, some do it by immobilising them, some do it by resisting them and some do it by avoiding them. But any martial art that is actually used by a civilian in a real fight is a martial art that is insufficient for self defence, because nobody can successfully defend themselves against their fellow men forever.
Look at the totalitarian regimes of Africa, whole villages are macheted to death in the night, children are forced to rape and kill their parents and siblings and there's simply nothing they can do about it, no matter how well trained they might be in their martial art of choice.
In my book, the best form of self defence is living in a First World country and paying your taxes. Taxes provide police presence. Police presence is a disincentive to crime across the majority of the social spectrum. Making less people willing to commit crimes is far more efficient self defence than any sort of training. Sure, you might still be attacked by an unexpected assailant, and then a martial art might help you finish the fight with less damage than the other guy, but you've done a lot more to make yourself safe by paying your taxes than you have by practicing a martial art for seven years.
Krav Maga has been mentioned; it is good for war, not self defence. Krav Maga instills an attitude to fighting which is incompatible with civilian self defence. If you are well enough trained in Krav Maga to use it in an unanticipated fight then you will seriously injure somebody. If you do this in the streets or at a bar or club you are a criminal. That's not good for self defence...
Brazilian Ju-Jitsu has been mentioned; it is good when you don't have to worry about being beaten to death by somebody's mates. BJJ presumes and plans for every hand to hand fight going to the ground. If you are grappling somebody on the ground you are unable to avoid additional assailants effectively. That's not good for self defence...
Systema has been mentioned; it is not a martial art any more than Kung Fu or Silat is a martial art. 'The Russian System' is a label applied to a set of diverse combat martial arts and non-combat awareness and tactical systems. Kadochnikov's System, which appears to be what the video with the russian instructor and the marines is showing (though it could be Ryabko's System or even R.O.S.S, we don't see enough to tell), is often claimed to be very effective, but it's another combat focused art. In a real fight you will probably hurt people. It's less brutal than Krav Maga, apparently, but that doesn't make much difference in an unexpected fight...
So far, nobody has mentioned Parkour; it's probably the very core of option three on the poll. David Belle put together the basics of Parkour with the emphasis on total efficiency. The slightly ludicrous scenes in the newest James Bond movies are not Parkour, they are freerunning. Parkour doesn't look pretty, in fact it often looks rather ugly, but it is intended to be the trained technique of getting as far away from something as fast as possible. You want self defence? Being several hundred metres away and the other side of a 10' wall would be a pretty damn effective defence, but you need to be able to start moving away from your assailant. In an unexpected fight you've still got to find or create the opening to run. That's not good for self defence...
If you want to defend yourself you must seek to put yourself into a position in which you are not going to be attacked. Most martial arts are very clear about that point. Some of them do it by breaking the other person, some do it by disabling them, some do it by immobilising them, some do it by resisting them and some do it by avoiding them. But any martial art that is actually used by a civilian in a real fight is a martial art that is insufficient for self defence, because nobody can successfully defend themselves against their fellow men forever.
Look at the totalitarian regimes of Africa, whole villages are macheted to death in the night, children are forced to rape and kill their parents and siblings and there's simply nothing they can do about it, no matter how well trained they might be in their martial art of choice.
In my book, the best form of self defence is living in a First World country and paying your taxes. Taxes provide police presence. Police presence is a disincentive to crime across the majority of the social spectrum. Making less people willing to commit crimes is far more efficient self defence than any sort of training. Sure, you might still be attacked by an unexpected assailant, and then a martial art might help you finish the fight with less damage than the other guy, but you've done a lot more to make yourself safe by paying your taxes than you have by practicing a martial art for seven years.
It escapes me the proper name...but whatever the british S.A.S. use. I heard it is very effective in,erm, "subduing" your foe...
This is the typical "The only martial arts I know are the ones in movies/anime" reply.inu-kun said:
Martial arts, in a self-defense context, are not to be used in the same way you see them in, say a demonstration, where there's a lot of needless flailing around and "show off". In a fight martial arts are all about efficiency. About knowing what joints to turn where, how to apply momentum to your advantage, and where to hit to inflict maximum damage, or where to hit to instantly disable your opponent. There's nothing mythical about Martial arts, they're actually very scientific.
Here's an example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMZZr94WFRc].
If you still doubt me, go see some MMA, UFC or Vale Tudo... Everyone there is using martial arts.
Thiking about it, I would like to go all fanboi about a particular martial artist though. We had an oldish-looking guy that nobody knew come late to an Aikido session. He came out in hakama and a white obi, so the instructors went and had a word with him then let him join the Dan training group.
We practice 'harrasment' training sessions when it's getting towards grading time, where somebody is privately designated as a target and the Dan grades attack them (carefully!) without prior warning at some point in the evening. I was partnered with the poor bastard that recieved harrasement that day.
The unknown gentleman, as it turned out later, was one of out head instructor's previous masters, who was in town visiting friends. He literally threw the guy across the room with one hand in a wristlock on the guys chest. That is to say, the only contact the gentleman had with the guy was one hand, twisted around at a funny angle, pressed against the guy's chest, without any force behind it. And then suddenly the guy was rising gently across the room looking suprised.
It turned out the gentleman was allowing the guy to apply a technique called Nikyo [http://www.sandiegokaratedo.com/waza/nikyo.jpg], since the objective is for the harrassed student to practice using techniques, and the last thing the two of us had been practicing was a type of Nikyo defence from a punch. The guy applied a poor Nikyo (he was quite good in general, but tended to worry about hurting his partners), so the gentleman felt it necessary to demonstrate that this was unacceptable.
It's a technique that roughly translates as 'rolling energy' (atsuen ki) motion, and it's the sort of thing that makes Beatrice Kiddo's contact punch in Kill Bil 2 look like a wildly swung haymaker. And I'm never going to be good enough to apply it, I reckon.
*crai*
We practice 'harrasment' training sessions when it's getting towards grading time, where somebody is privately designated as a target and the Dan grades attack them (carefully!) without prior warning at some point in the evening. I was partnered with the poor bastard that recieved harrasement that day.
The unknown gentleman, as it turned out later, was one of out head instructor's previous masters, who was in town visiting friends. He literally threw the guy across the room with one hand in a wristlock on the guys chest. That is to say, the only contact the gentleman had with the guy was one hand, twisted around at a funny angle, pressed against the guy's chest, without any force behind it. And then suddenly the guy was rising gently across the room looking suprised.
It turned out the gentleman was allowing the guy to apply a technique called Nikyo [http://www.sandiegokaratedo.com/waza/nikyo.jpg], since the objective is for the harrassed student to practice using techniques, and the last thing the two of us had been practicing was a type of Nikyo defence from a punch. The guy applied a poor Nikyo (he was quite good in general, but tended to worry about hurting his partners), so the gentleman felt it necessary to demonstrate that this was unacceptable.
It's a technique that roughly translates as 'rolling energy' (atsuen ki) motion, and it's the sort of thing that makes Beatrice Kiddo's contact punch in Kill Bil 2 look like a wildly swung haymaker. And I'm never going to be good enough to apply it, I reckon.
*crai*
Besides Savate and Greco-Roman Wrestling, I don't really know any other unarmed fighting style from the West (by the way, fuck you bartitsu, even if you were immortalized by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, you are goofy, elitist, unwieldy, and extremely embarrassing to martial arts in general). That's why I chose Eastern, because their grace and speed combined with power usually dominates fights, unless of course America happens to find a 7 foot tall freak with muscles larger than most people's heads, then it may take a really good martial artist rather than a white belt.
Actually, the dominant fighters have usually been the biggest. Any real martial artist will tell you that fights still often boil down to who is bigger, regardless of technique. In contact tournaments exclusively Western boxers and grapplers regularly beat exclusively Eastern martial arts practitioners, and it's usually because they bigger, stronger and physically more resilient. Of course, that's nothing to do with self defence, though, so the comparison is meaningless for the people that aren't professional fighters built like a Kampfpanzer.Phase_9 said:
That's not entirely true. Many Eastern styles include and even focus on grappling that uses their opponent's size and strength against them, almost negating that aspect, since reach is almost negligent when grappling and their opponent's size may be used against them. You are right about the self-defense thing for karate and the like, but when I posted, I was actually referring to Judo and similar grappling styles. I probably should have mentioned that, along with the fact that in MMA, most of the grappling seems to be borrowed from such Eastern styles by the more successful fighters.Convenient_Label said:
But ball-kicking would probably hurt more.
Phase_9, you're not actually a judoka, I take it? The whole 'use their size against them' attitude doesn't exist in practice. Bigger fighters within a technique, definitely Judo, Jujitsu and Hapkido, at the very least, will do better than similarly skilled smaller fighters, even if you're talking about a fight going to ground. Most of the ground techniques employed in mixed martial arts tournaments are derived from Brazilian Jujitsu, a western style, which is almost unrecognisable when compared to the eastern style of Japanese Jujitsu.
And ball kicking seriously isn't the worst. I've been kicked square in the balls with somebody's tibia bone, and certain of the crueller ground techniques we occasionally practice in Aikido not only hurt *more*, they hurt for longer, too. (You're generally expected to have experienced them 'in full' at the hands of a Dan before practicing them on others, so that you know when to stop...)
We actually came to the conclusion that being kicked straight between the legs is just as incapacitating for women, but they seem to recover faster. Either sex will basically collapse in a tiny heap and pray for a swift death to end the pain, but women can then get back up and just be rather sore for a few hours, whereas men tended to still be aching next session, three days later. I hasten to add that we didn't have a ball-kicking competition, it was just evidence over the years of people failing to dodge kicks...Krakamaka said:
And ball kicking seriously isn't the worst. I've been kicked square in the balls with somebody's tibia bone, and certain of the crueller ground techniques we occasionally practice in Aikido not only hurt *more*, they hurt for longer, too. (You're generally expected to have experienced them 'in full' at the hands of a Dan before practicing them on others, so that you know when to stop...)