Best martial art?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know, I've worked Law Enforcement for 10 years and I'm currently in a city of something over 100,000 warm bodies.

In dealing with all those years worth of the worst elements of society, I've come to the conclusion that the critters just aren't all that good at stand-up one-on-one scrapping.

Your average critter is good at pack tactics, and he's a whiz at ambushes, but when it comes down to brass tacks and he's face-to-face with a calm, cool and wary opponent, a critter would just rather be drinking a root-beer somewhere else.

The Gracies aren't out mugging people, and I seriously doubt if their students are out mugging people.

It is my opinion and observations that someone who has the time, patience, dedication and discipline to master a martial art in anything is not going to be out robbing/raping strangers on the street.

Life isn't a UFC match, ladies and gentlemen. The chances of you stumbling into a an episode of Ginsu Theatre and needing to disable 12 consecutive Masters of Various Animal Gung-Fu on the way to work in the morning is fairly non-existant.

Find a martial art that you like. As you study it, teach yourself that when you need it, you will use it explosively and with 100% commitment. and then run. Hurt the pedator quickly, and then get out of the area. Or transition to a weapon.

Either smash-and-scoot, or smash-and-shoot.

Find something that you like. Not what I like, not what he likes, but what you like. Something you like well enough to study long and study hard.

The confidence that you gain as you progress will show in body language. Carrying yourself like a warrior, instead of some critters next meal, will save your butt more than a certificate from the Martial Art du jour.

Just my humble opinion.

LawDog
 
Last edited:
here we go again.......my kung fu is better than your kung fu..........As a longtime TKD practitioner and instructor I have seen the proof of the pudding so to speak. TKD is blasted over and over again because of it's popularity....(can you say petty jealousy?)....Because it has become the most practiced art in the world, and because it has become an olympic sport, then naturally it's the art that every other art seems to want to knock off that popular pedestal.

Are there instructors that misrepresent themselves are sell the art of TKD short, or even focus nearly entirely on the sports aspects of the art? Of course.....same with every other style of martial art at least to some degree. TKD gets mentioned most often because of the above mentioned reasons. But to say it is not an effective striking art is absolutely ridiculous.

Sure, there are plenty of Mcdogos out there, and plenty of instructors who teach false confidence for profit, whether it be striking arts OR grappling arts.

Also, as Lawdog so profoundly stated...Life is not a UFC championship....(I'm a name dropper and have a relationship with Russell Hughes, who is the father of Matt Hughes (He lives basically right down the cornfield from me) ...Matt Hughes is of course the welter weight UFC world chanpiojn and an boy from illinois who helps out on the family farm and wrestled in high school. What is his approach? Ground and pound accented with powerful upper body strength and overall physical conditioning.

I have seen him three times, and in all three matches he won by picking up his opponent and slamming him to the ground, supplemented by any punches he could throw in the interum.

THAT'S THE UFC...........In real life 99% of fights one will encounter on the streets will be by assailants with little or no stylized fighting system. they may be adept at a few dirty tricks. In almost all one on one fights that occur on the street, the assailant will not want to go to the ground either, and anyone proficient in striking arts , balanced with good physical conditioning, who does train for the common street attacks will usually prevail, without going to the ground.

So while I encourage my students to stay up on their feet and use their hapkido techniques to stay up on their feet if forced to grapple, I also encourage them to cross-train in grappling arts (I have froend from other grappling schools that would accomadate any of my stuents who would like to cross-train).

If you are an expert in any martial art, be it striking or grappling, you will have an advantage over almost any street thug, taking into consideration realistic training (and full contact TKD matches may not be the real thing but to say it is "foot tag' at the men's blackbelt level would be like saying wrestling matches in high school and at the college level are just" rolling around".

You learn from any art what you are willing to put into it.

To master grappling and think that is all you need to protect yourself on the street is as ridiculous as mastering only a striking art. They both have their strong points and their weak points, so some knowledge of both as well as emotional/mental and psycological awareness is a must.

Find a good instructor that suits you, (make sure it's a good instructor and/or school) and then give it your all. It truly is important to build confidence and not act like a victim.

There is no one art that is best for everyone. To be truly proficient in self-defense one must devote a lot of time (and blood, sweat and sometimes tears) in all ranges of fighting. That, as lawdog points out, is not something you do for a short while, it is a way of life. Otherwise, maybe one should practice running really fast, (which incidently is sometimes what self-defense requires)

Train hard and you will be hard to beat.
 
Traditional Ju Jitsu is a tri-phasic art that was intended to protect the Samurai if he lost his sword on the battlefield. Phase one is punches and kicks. Two is takedowns and throws and third is ground control. BJJ concentrates on the third phase. As a street cop the ground is not where I want to be due to multiple attackers who may not attack me when I am on my feet but if I am on the ground have no problem kicking me in the head. Locks done on the ground can be done standing. I like to use walls and cars for vertical stuns instead of going to the ground. Ju Jitsu also allows for a measured response. You can go from control to death. It is also a circular art instead of being linier. This plays into the human response where punches and kicks become roundhouses when the fine motor skill deteriorate. My depts DT program is based on Ju Jitsu and I feel it is the best for most people. You may one day have to kill someone with your art however from my experience you are far more likely to have to control a drunk. Check out the dojo I train at @ Reddragonjujitsu.com
 
I've seen a number of videos of BJJ tournaments, and had the chance to spar with a guy for an hour or so, and I want to reinforce something hdm25 said.
Regardless of how realistic the training seems, it's still within certain parameters.
You simply aren't "allowed" to try to kill your opponent.
No blows to the throat, no eye gouges, those two alone are very seriously effective techniques.

And I have to agree with pretty much everything Lawdog said.
You shouldn't be looking for the art that's going to allow you to beat anyone else in any other art. What is needed is a fun, serious, worthwhile and regular training setting where you can get some time in dealing with H2H situations. Any of the major arts, and some of the minor ones will do this for you, providing you like the teacher and students.

I would add that there simply isn't enough time to get great at everything.
I studied aikido pretty extensively for 10 years, with a little kung fu and t'ai ch'i, but I did nothing else. Now I'm spending my time developing my shooting skills, meditation, and relationship with my wife and child.

These guys who are kicking everyone's ass - a) do they have a life? b) can they draw and put two shots COM in less than 2 seconds?
 
Demeanor? In life or death situation?

I've been assessing my 54 years on this planet and when I first started in m.a. in 1960, I was always taught that it was the man and not the art that made a true martial artist.
I was lucky, I got to meet Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, Ed Parker, Mike Stone, Fumio Demura, Gordon Doversola, "O-Sensei,"Taky Kimura, etc., etc...too many other folks to mention who are considered "great"now. They were considered good then....all of them were from different "martial arts."
Recently I have had the good fortune to meet and talk with Jet Li and Jackie Chan ...again, they are considered "great" in what they do."

These men are all products of their training, I don't think it was a specific m.a. but it was the one they chose to practice in that gave them the tools to become what they are.

It is like the question, which gun, which caliber, etc...which is the best------that will make you a master? It is practice, practice, practice, until you have great confidence in yourself. Then go into competition to see how you compare to others....then it is practice, practice, practice again, until you master that part....someday, you will reach a high enough level to see that it was the practice and your willingness to train that made you good, not which martial art.
 
The Best Martial Arts is the one you're trained for, plus your determination to fight and win at all cost. Remember, many kinds of martial arts never work at all in real fight but are all good in movies only. In my early teens and 20's I am a damn fanatic of martial arts and have learned several of it, but in the end, the one that counts is the head on how to avoid a fight if someone can.
 
Remember, many kinds of martial arts never work at all in real fight but are all good in movies only.

Huh?.....name them.....it's never the martial art, it almost always comes down to either the instructor, the student, or both.

In many MA movies you will see poorly executed techniques, (usually by blond-haired blue-eyed female actors) or you will see someone take a falwlessly executed flying sidekick straight to the jaw by someone like ballet dancer Van Dam..(sp?) and hardly be fazed by it. I don't think the average BG would get up so easily from such a kick. Then of course there are always the multiple attackers that cannot seem to figure out to attack all at once rather than wait their turns........*g*
 
I have used Ju Jitsu at work several times with good results. I have found out there are not very many things you can do to another human that are not Ju Jitsu techniques. For me while working anyway I can't punch somebody hard enough to put them in handcuffs. Joint locks followed by pressure points that have a mechanical as well as pain compliance advantage seem to work well for me.
 
I endorse Tae Kwon Do

I have a Black Belt in Tae Kwon Do and I competed full contact as an amatuer heavy weight at the national level 12 years ago. My instructor incorporated anything proven to work from other styles.

I'm prejudiced, but I think that Tae Kwon Do, taught properly, and incorporating boxing and other styles is the best way to go.

I also wrestled successfully in high school, which I would fall back on in a grappling situation (no pun intended).

The advantage of having a variety of back up styles/techniques available to you; kicking, hand techniques, boxing, wrist locks, and grappling techniques, is that you never want to play an opponent at their own game.

My first strategy in a self defence situation that I could not avoid, would be to fight standing up, punching and kicking. Unless my opponent was a better kicker than me, in whcih case I would go inside and box him, and if his hands were faster than mine, I'd go to grappling (wresting). The different styles are useful at different ranges and against different opponents, and different numbers of opponents.

It's like deciding which you like best, handguns, shotguns, long guns. It depends on the situation, its nice to have a choice, it's nice to have something else to go to. But if you focus in on one and always have it with you, that's pretty good, too!
 
You can't always go to the ground. Multiple opponents would be suicide to go to the ground. Find a good striking art.
Click to expand...

This logic has always been flawed. Yes, if you're grappling someone and his buddies decide to kick your ass, they will kick your ass. Guess what--if you're fighting someone standing up, and his buddies decide to kick your ass, they will kick your ass. Anyone who tells you that they can take on three people determined to hurt you, Kung Fu movie-style, is full of crap.

To answer the question: jiu-jitsu or Hapkido. Both teach throws, grappling, and striking.
 
Strategy for Multiple Opponents

Shmackey
"This logic has always been flawed. Yes, if you're grappling someone and his buddies decide to kick your ass, they will kick your ass. Guess what--if you're fighting someone standing up, and his buddies decide to kick your ass, they will kick your ass. Anyone who tells you that they can take on three people determined to hurt you, Kung Fu movie-style, is full of crap."

Nothing personal, but you don't know what you're talking about. Your reference to movies is probably the extent of your martial arts experience.

There's nothing wrong with having a strategy for the disadvantage of multiple opponents, STANDING UP!
 
If I'm fighting a guy standing up, and four of his buddies show up, I have the option of running like a scalded ape for the hills.

If I'm rolling around on the ground grappling with a guy, and four of his buddies show up, first I've got to get him to let go of me/get off me. Then I've got to get to my feet. I've probably got to shake him loose one more time. Then, and only then, can I run.

LawDog
 
Your reference to movies is probably the extent of your martial arts experience.
Click to expand...

I'll tell my instructors to stop wasting my time then.

There's nothing wrong with having a strategy for the disadvantage of multiple opponents, STANDING UP!
Click to expand...

Read the previous posts. It was stated that ground fighting is problematic because of the multiple-attacker scenario. I'm saying that stand-up fighting shares that same problem. You want to have a strategy, that's great. You're right--there's nothing wrong with it. But you'll still be in a world of trouble.

If you seriously think that you can defeat a handful of opponents in a street fight, I hope you do have that .45 to go along with your TKD.
 
LawDog's argument is much more reasonable. I'm not convinced that it's very plausible to run away from a handful of people (are they standing in a chorus line in front of you?) but it's fair to say that there are more steps involved if you're tangled up.

I would still like to hear from one MA instructor that they will prepare you to take on (ie, do anything but run away) from a handful of attackers. That's one instructor I would stay away from.
 
Multiple targets

I would still like to hear from one MA instructor that they will prepare you to take on (ie, do anything but run away) from a handful of attackers. That's one instructor I would stay away from.
Click to expand...

We do tactical pistol scenarios against multiple targets or attackers. What's the difference for martial arts training against multiple attackers? There is no difference. It happens, so its prudent to train for it.

Of course, avoidance is best.
 
Provided you stay standing and can maneuver it is possible to come out ahead fighting multiple opponents. Its hard and requires a lot of skill, but it is possible. Most people never learn to fight as group. They fight as individuals and so they get in each others way a lot. You can use this to your advantage if you are properly trained. Your still an underdog, but your not as much of an underdog as you might think.
 
I can see both sides, but I do have to say that multiple opponents is not a "fight" situation when you can choose "flight". I know very few people who really have much of a chance against multiple opponents in an unarmed fight. Most people just can't do enough damage unarmed to take someone out quickly. Multiple someones striking YOU can take you out rather quickly. In addition, there are very few fights against multiple opponents (unarmed) where it will be a stand-up contest. You will be held and/or grappled and then held while someone kicks the s**t out of you. This is not to say that defeating multiple unarmed foes is impossible, it's just not very likely.

The difference between training for multiple attackers in an armed scenario vs. unarmed is that you CAN do enough damage with a firearm to drop multiple attackers. Even in this case, though, it's assuming YOU have the drop on them (which is not a defensive scenario). The old El Presidente drill, when done with Simunitions against real opponents, just doesn't work out. Generally the best anyone can do against three foes is to place good enough shots to drop two before he is hit "fatally". If he manages to put a single shot on each, the shots are usually not good enough to assume that they would ALL be "stops" in reality.

Again, I can see both sides, but I lean toward NOT being able to do much against multiple attackers if they have any amount of skill or organization at all. I am an exception, but I know that myself and any one of two or three different friends of mine can take pretty much any single person that we've ever trained against. Again, though, this is guys who have trained together and practiced together, not a group of thugs who might act as individuals rather than part of a team.

Train how you will...I DO train against multiple opponents unarmed but this just shows me not to have much faith in being able to beat multiple opponents. I have more faith in my ability to place good hits with a handgun on multiple opponents than I do in my ability to take on multiple opponents unarmed and beat them. In either case, flight is preferable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top