Best style of martial arts for self-defense?

[Dale]

So which style of martial arts is best for self-defense?

Krav-maga is consistently rated as top for practical self defense, but I have no personal experience with it. I think that it is a less organized martial art than some, so the quality will vary significantly from school to school. I do hapkido (just received my black belt this past weekend), and my wife and kids do a mix of hapkido and tae kwon do, so those are the only ones that I know personally.

I actually think that TKD is good for kids and women because the kicks that you learn are good at keeping distance between you and an attacker. You definitely do not want to do any wrestling or grappling for self-defense. Even the world's best grappler will only be able to handle a single attacker, and if the attacker has any buddies nearby then the good wrestler will just be in a dominant position when he gets his head kicked in by the second attacker. TKD also has the advantage that it is offered everywhere.

Hapkido is TKD's mean cousin. It has many of the strikes and kicks of TKD, and adds in joint locks and breaks, knee and elbow strikes, and throws and so forth (including a little bit of grappling). Many TKD schools will also teach hapkido since they are both Korean martial arts.

 

[Simon Bridge]

In NZ Judo used to be taught to women because of the training to break holds and throwing distances you from your attacker. The threat model here being that a potential rapist grabs you by suprise.

 

[Astronuc]

I learned Tae Kwon Do - but off a Korean ex-military guy I lived with. It's what he learned in the army.
Very little kicking or fancy stuff - hit hard and run away philosophy. The biggest bonus, though, was psychological: I was unconsciously carrying myself different to the effect that people stopped bothering me - which was useful because I had to go to bad ends of town by myself a fair bit.
Getting fit didn't hurt either.

The self defense part of a martial art is not usually all that big-a part of what you learn - most of it is about discipline.
For defense: you need to know how to punch and grapple and fall down and gets lots of practice at everything.
The practice part is actually the important bit - street brawlers who are good got that way without formal training ... just getting into lots of fights.
Keep it simple - a real fight is not exciting to watch, very confusing to be involved in, and you rarely get time to think anyway.

I did Tae Kwon Do for several years, and I joined a friend in some classes in his Shaolin Kempo program. The Shaolin Kempo program was a derivative of Shaolin Kempo Karate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Kempo_Karate The instructor was a former marine instructor. I thought the SK was pretty good. Krav Maga or Brazilian Jiu-jitsu are also very good for self defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_jiu-jitsu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krav_Maga

As Simon Bridge indicated it is good for training/conditioning and exercise. Most programs teach forms of self defense, in addition to basic kicks, punches, and forms.

The Shaolin Kempo program included grappling and wrestling.

 

[bballwaterboy]

tae kwon do is pretty but it's useless because it relies on too much fancy kicking. Any wrestling or grappling martial arts will be much more effective. Say Judo and Jiu-Jitsu. For modern defensive arts you can look at Krav Maga and Sambo.

I took Taekwondo to the 2nd degree black belt level. I would agree and disagree with Greg here. It's definitely not useless, as you can easily see that some of the best MMA fighters utilize Taekwondo kicks (see Cung Le, Anderson Silva, etc.). In fact, Cung Le's successful use of basic Taekwondo (and I think other types of kicking styles) kicks is said by some (like Joe Rogan) to have revolutionized and revitalized that aspect of the fighting sport. Prior to that, MMA had not seen such a dominant kicker. It really is amazing what he's able to do with simple kicks done technically correct and with good timing (you can look up Cung Le's training videos or Joe Rogan teaching proper form of Taekwondo kicks on Youtube for reference).

With that being said, Taekwondo does have many limitations and should not be used solely as a comprehensive method of self-defense. Specifically, TKD focuses heavily on kicking, which leaves out development of the hands. So something like boxing would be a good complement to TKD kicks. But, even then, one would not have a complete range of fighting ability. According to Bruce Lee, there are four distances in fighting:

Kicking
Punching
Trapping
Grappling

Depending on how far away your adversary is, one of these major types of attack becomes appropriate. Of course, many people who don't possesses certain skills for a particular distance will try to avoid being caught in that distance against someone who may have those skills (e.g., a striker avoiding a close range fight with a grappler).

Each martial art seems to have its pros and cons. I would think one could learn something useful in each of them, but keeping in mind that it's just as important to throw away those things that are non-useful (as Bruce Lee advised).

 

[Seth1533]

In response to annoyingirl

I'll first start off with non-traditional martial arts. Almost all popular martial arts have roots in some previous fighting method. With that said, Krav maga takes on a lot of different styles (so many that for the purpose of this thread, I'll consider it a non-traditional martial art). To it's credit, it does have a belt system. I would say it's the most effective in terms of real life "no rules" fighting. It also teaches defense agains weapons and use of weapons (either ones you carry or ones that you take from the opponent). Next would be MMA basically for the same reason that it's a mix of fighting styles. However, in competition and training, there are rules to abide by which in a real life fight, you may resort to due to the training and not use "illegal" methods in the actual fight that could give you an advantage. For that reason, and since you can't use weapons, I'll consider it 2nd to krav maga. Although, I would argue that it seems to be more evolved and popular in its form than krav maga.

For traditional martial arts here's my rankings: Judo, BJJ, Wrestling, Boxing, Muay Thai, Kick Boxing.

I think judo is #1 because it takes on 2 major principals. 95% fights end up on the ground. Judo teaches you how to take somebody to the ground, and how to fight once in that position. It's not as evolved as BJJ but against a random person (chances are untrained in ground fighting), it gives you the advantage to finish a fight. The main reason I rank it number 1 is because when a judoka throws and opponent, they end up in a dominant position and often transition right into a submission hold. If that fails, the person still has the skills needed to win.

BJJ is a close second because it's like JUDO newaza on steriods. Any non-trained person is going to have a hard time finishing a bjj player with any method.

Wrestling comes next because wrestlers are tough and will drop you on your head. A wrestler rarely gives up a dominant position, in a street fight a wrestler will demolish somebody who's not trained on the ground. It's also probably the best fighting style that teaches somebody how to take the fight down. I still rank it behind Judo and BJJ because there aren't really submissions taught in traditional wrestling and the wrestler would probably be better off dropping punches.

I think boxing is next because most street fights you can gage distance and minimize getting taken down by sole use of hands. Kickboxers and other strikers take that risk when kicking. Since most fights end up on the ground I have to rank it behind the others because there's no ground fighting whatsoever in boxing.

Muay thai utilizes the use of hands, elbows, feet, and knees. More importantly, the clinch. There's still the risk of getting taken down though by using all of the kicks.

Lastly, I'll rate kick boxing behind muay thai because it doesn't utilize as many techniques as muay thai but still takes on the risk of getting taken down.

 

[UsableThought]

eard good things about Judo and Aikido, but I'd say that you should do self defense training to learn self defense, not martial arts

This is by far the most on-target comment . . . if what you're after is really self-defense, not just learning a fighting method. Find a school near you that specifically states they teach practical self-defense. Not a martial arts school as such; martial arts are by and large sports-oriented and/or "tradition" oriented, both of which have nothing to do with self defense. I'd also suggest being careful about the newer schools & styles around, including those with military origins or orientation, that say they teach "street fighting"; this has a relation to self-defense but tends to assume you are hard-core, tip-top shape, apt to be involved in combat on the street, etc. Injury rates will tend to be high in such training, I'd guess; they're fairly high in most serious martial arts as well.

In regards to sparring, sparring at a martial arts school won't be directed at self-defense but drilling particular techniques; and more advanced sparring will still be confined to rules that won't be followed on the street. Whereas in a self-defense program you will have hands-on training with simulated attacks intended to be very much like actual attacks on the street.

If you have community-oriented women's centers or women's service organizations near you, you might contact them & ask if they know of any appropriate programs near you.

On the other hand if your real urge is not self defense but fighting . . . that's very different and then these other comments about which school of fighting is most bad-ass may appeal to you.

 

[Heisenburgundy Gold]

The best striking arts to start off with is Western Boxing or Thai Boxing. The moves are not fancy or look as brilliant as Karate or Tae Kwon Doe but that's because all the boxing arts are battle tested. And under stress in a real fight the simpler moves are easier to remember. As Vitor Belfort said they're "just beans and rice but cooked to perfection."

Any grappling art will work for self defense whether it's BJJ, Sambo, Judo, or Wrestling(Catch, Freestyle, or Greco-Roman). The reason why is because sparring is done every time you come to class, allowing you to get real life reaistance. What you do in class is the exact same thing you would do in a real fight. And if your opponent has no ground game your grappling skills are magnified greatly. That is the reason grappling art has the advantage over striking ones when using them outside the dojo.

That being said a student must learn both for self defense reasoning because a real fight has both elements. And as despite how I boasted grappling it is best used to get to your feet quickly if you get put on the ground. If someone has a knife it's a lot easier to stab you while your rolling on the ground with them. One of his mates can easily head kick or stomp you while your setting up a hold.

On the same note sometimes grappling is a better option than striking. If your at a family get together and your favorite uncle gets drunk I'm sure you wouldn't want to hit him with a four piece combo and knock him out. So in that case taking him down and pinning him to the ground until he tires out is the best option.

My credentials with Martial Arts: yellow belt in Japanese/Traditional Jiu Jitsu.

One Stripe white belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (though my last two professors said I am a blue belt level).

Two year of Muay Thai boxing.

and Yellow belt/Level 2 student in Krav Maga.

 

[Douwe Geluk]

Hello my name is Douwe Geluk from the Netherlands and i practise the martial art Tai Chi Chuan and also Chi Kung in Apeldoorn city.

Your question:

Well what is most effective? It depends on the person and the way he trains. These day's the UFC, MMA and BJJ are conddered as most effective.

For me the most effective was How Chuen Monkey Kungfu Sasquatch style, Kyokushin Karate and currently Tai Chi Chuan and Chi Kung.

I love to practise Tai Chi and i am happy with it and ot works for me.

Greeting

Douwe Geluk

 

[morrobay]

So since this is a physics forum is the following correct: A pure boxing punch say a straight right has more momentum than any martial arts punch because a boxer pivots the body during the punch as opposed to the martial arts "arm punch" So the boxer in a match with a martial artist would have the advantage. As Floyd Mayweather demonstrated.

 

[nuuskur]

I'd say outside of competition sports, which applies to most of us, if one is inclined to learn about self-defense, train something that'll allow you to incapacitate, not injure. The smartest thing is to always avoid fighting (while not in the ring).
During the military service, we had elements of wrestling and jiu-jitsu in our routine. (To be fair, in the service we're trained to kill not dance). Worrying about 'power of punch/kick' is redundant, you don't want to ever have to use that punch/kick.

 

[Bobman]

I've practiced different martial arts basically my whole life, mostly traditional martial arts (i.e. not martial arts where you intended to compete or view it as a sport) and thus not the most practical for actual self defense. I've mainly done it because i enjoy it.

Strictly speaking for self defense (asuming it's not a possibility to walk away or talk your way out of it), i would say the most important aspect is that it contains a lot of actual sparring. Being able to throw a good punch or kick against pads or a punching bag is fun and may give confidence in your ability, but it is not nearly as important as reflexes, mental attitude and adapting to what the other person is doing.

It's also useful to get something that incorporates both punching, kicking and wrestling/grappling. At least to some extent, so you get comfortable with all "stages". I would say the least important feature is kicking probably. Kicking ability can greatly be hindered by choice of pants, shoes and to some extent the environment around you. If it's a closed space there is not much room for kicking.

If i personally would go for a martial art for the sole purpose of self defense, i would go for something who isn't intended for sport, probably like Krav Maga because it is more "practical" and with the purpose and attitude to actually be "practical" more than "just" to become better your sport or martial art.

But probably all (legit) martial arts will probably put you above anyone who doesn't do martial arts. It's also important to find a good club or instructor that isn't overly confident, in his martial art. What i mean with that is that a lot of instructors seem to say that "this works against a knife" for example. The best unarmed defense against a knife is to comply with the agressor or run the hell out of there. Teaching people to make them confident that they can avoid knifes with "this move" is very dangerous.

So since this is a physics forum is the following correct: A pure boxing punch say a straight right has more momentum than any martial arts punch because a boxer pivots the body during the punch as opposed to the martial arts "arm punch" So the boxer in a match with a martial artist would have the advantage. As Floyd Mayweather demonstrated.

It all comes down to mass, acceleration and momentum ;-)
There more mass you can move (for example, how good your technique is to put more of your body behind the punch) and how fast you can move this will matter more than the name of the technique.
It would probably have to be measured on a sensor to see which punch delivers the most amount of force.

One reason why boxers punch in one way and mixed martial artists does it in another way, could be that the boxer only have to worry about punches and thus doesn't have to worry about his stance making him more vurnable against kicks or takedowns.

So everyone does their best within their frame of "safety" against the opponents arsenal.

 

[HAYAO]

I practice boxing, and have practiced kickboxing and MMA, and in terms of self-defense, I would have to go with boxing on this one. But it is quite situational.

For example, if you are in a 1 vs 1 situation where you don't really have to worry about the opponent being dirty (for example, challenge to a fight), then MMA works nice. If you have done enough sparring, then you are prepared for most of the opponent's move. You also keep relatively long distance between you and your opponent in kickboxing and MMA, so if the opponent has a weapon, you naturally have that distance you need.

On the other hand, if you are in a 1 vs multiple situation, then you are likely to last longer if you are a boxer than a MMA fighter. The most important thing in a 1 vs multiple situation is to handle each one of them quickly, just enough to keep the fight 1 vs 1. You don't have time to kick and/or be slightly off balance utilizing a kick, much less taking the opponent down and attempting submission moves. Boxers dedicated their time on training only on the strikes with the hands. This will give you better hand and feet coordination to give you a quicker knockout than if you were a MMA fighter where you have used some of that time doing grappling and kicks.

 

[Collyn]

I think that the most effective martial art for self-defense is krav maga. That is not an easy art to conquer but it gives great results. Read this if you want to learn about it http://www.thebaynet.com/community/family/martial-arts-for-self-defence-where-to-start.html

 

[Kevin the Crackpot]

The best martial art depends upon the physical and psychological makeup of the student who studies it.

I, for example, have Asperger's . . . and this entails a certian amount of motor clumsiness, as I don't have the fine motor skills of, say, a talented dancer.

So, I don't do well with Choy le fut gung fu, but fare better with krav maga.

If someone (not neccesarily you) is very overweight, then study sumo wrestling.

And so on.

Assess your personal inclinations, your body type, your strengths and weaknesses, and then research which style works best for your situation.

 

[Spinnor]

Oh. I also forgot to mention that I am female, so I don't have much upper body strength.

Get a friend and Wrestle. Women can get scary strong but it takes time.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Best for self-defense? I keep coming back to this...

 

[HAYAO]

Best for self-defense? I keep coming back to this...

I always wanted to do that...only except owning a handgun in Japan is virtually impossible.

 

[morrobay]

Floyd Mayweather floors Japanese kickboxer Tenshin Nasukawa in bout with boxing rules. A boxer because of the stance, left foot forward while throwing a right, pivots at the hips and transfers weight to forward left foot at contact. With a left hook the boxer pivots and weight ends up on back right foot. The stance of a martial arts fighter is front facing : both feet on a line that would be at right angle to an extended arm. The boxer has more momentum in a punch than the "arm punch" of a martial arts type fighter.
So unless someone is going to dedicate many hours to learn one of the various martial arts I would suggest just learning a few basic boxing punches, straight right and left hook. By the way some fights have ended with just a left jab.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/boxing...egor-with-10th-round-tko-20170827-gy54lb.html
And here is Mayweather stopping mixed martial arts fighter Conor Mcgregor

 

[Dale]

Floyd Mayweather floors Japanese kickboxer Tenshin Nasukawa in bout with boxing rules

And here is Mayweather stopping mixed martial arts fighter Conor Mcgregor

Both fights were conducted using boxing rules. Self defense situations don’t use boxing rules. So learning boxing style punches may be good self defense advice, but not learning boxing as a whole.

 

[HAYAO]

Hmm...

Self-defense scenarios falls into two categories: 1) no weapons, and 2) with weapons.

For obvious reasons, boxing favors 1) scenarios. Almost all fights in the absence of a weapon start out with one of them punching. This means that one must a) defend the attack, and b) neutralize the threat as fast as possible. Boxing is obviously advantageous in this situation considering one can defend and counter using hands, and because of the dedication to the hands-only striking game, one is more likely to stop a fight faster than any other form of martial arts. This also means higher chances of 1 vs many being kept 1 vs 1. Yes, at certain point, the fight could go to the ground. However, skilled boxer will probably not let the opponent grab you because a boxer knows distance. If you are taken to the ground, yes it is better if you know some grappling as a secondary measure. Kicking in street fights is a big no-no, because it's slower than punches, requires a bit of a longer distance than punches, and could end you up off balance.

Unfortunately, no martial arts is truly effective against 2) unless you have a weapon yourself. For example, a knife defense is extremely difficult; this video explains well. You can throw aikido, krav maga, kung-fu, and everything at them, but you can't truly be prepared against a knife that has significant unpredictability, where each slash or stab is potentially fatally damaging. If you have a guy with a handgun or a rifle pointed at your head in point-blank range (which is extremely stupid), then yes, weapon defense is easier in this case. If you have a guy with a baseball bat, then you still have some decent ways to defend yourself. But knives? Handguns (with fair amount of distance)? I am sorry, but give them what they want. No martial arts can effectively deal with such situation in self-defense.

 

[Spinnor]

For obvious reasons, boxing favors 1)

The women who started this post is not likely going to box her way out of trouble. In time her strengths could be her quickness, strength of her legs, quickness with her hands, but likely not much power behind them, and some street legal defensive weapons (including a gun if she wants to go that route).

https://www.streetsmartforwomen.com...urZmH061FOWRjylcGMk93mXJKiVHcQ2mQl4IVrAbbec64

 

[Dale]

Almost all fights in the absence of a weapon start out with one of them punching. This means that one must a) defend the attack, and b) neutralize the threat as fast as possible. Boxing is obviously advantageous in this situation

I completely disagree with this. I disagree with the blanket statement that "almost all" unarmed fights start with a punch and I also disagree that boxing is "obviously advantageous" in fights that do start with a punch. I have no good evidence that suggests that "almost all" fights start in a particular way, do you?

I would think that many fights start with open handed pushing or grabbing long before closed fists. And depending on how you define the start of a fight I would think that verbal or posturing may be considered the beginning of many fights. And to me it is not obviously advantageous to respond or defend in the same manner of an attack. Personally, when sparring against someone that I believed had boxing experience, I would never try to respond as a boxer would but rather go "below the belt" as quickly and frequently as possible where they are unused to defending themselves and unused to taking hits.

 

[Demystifier]

The most efficient martial art techniques are those that are not allowed in sport competitions (such as UFC), simply because they are too dangerous. Some examples, which do not require a lot of skill and physical strength, are
- groin kick
- attacking the opponent's eyes with your fingers
- grabbing the opponent's hand fingers and breaking them by pulling in the right direction

 

[HAYAO]

I completely disagree with this. I disagree with the blanket statement that "almost all" unarmed fights start with a punch and I also disagree that boxing is "obviously advantageous" in fights that do start with a punch. I have no good evidence that suggests that "almost all" fights start in a particular way, do you?

I would think that many fights start with open handed pushing or grabbing long before closed fists. And depending on how you define the start of a fight I would think that verbal or posturing may be considered the beginning of many fights. And to me it is not obviously advantageous to respond or defend in the same manner of an attack. Personally, when sparring against someone that I believed had boxing experience, I would never try to respond as a boxer would but rather go "below the belt" as quickly and frequently as possible where they are unused to defending themselves and unused to taking hits.

Okay, we are probably arguing past each other. You are right, let's get into the definition of a fight starting.

My definition of a fight starting is when one is physically attacking in a way that can cause injuries. Why is this definition valid? Because as long as one of them are pushing you and/or verbally threatening you, you still have the option of talking things out and de-escalating the situation. However, once a physical potentially harmful attack is initiated, it is at this point that words or any attempt in de-escalating the situation is not a viable solution. Why? Because a punch is thrown once aggravated beyond one's control. This is a very basic behavior when one is mad beyond control. Even MMA fighters during staredowns that breaks out into a fight starts with one of them punching despite having tremendous amount of arsenal in terms of how effective they can attack the opponent. They don't kick. They don't attempt takedowns. They punch. Basically, your opponent is out of control at this point. Whatever you say is not going to make this guy chill. You are under attack.

At least in Japan, you are not allowed to defend yourself when the opponent does not physically injure you. Shoving and pushing, verbal threats are not considered an attack. A punch is. Unless the opponent has a weapon, you are not allowed to initiate your defense in Japan until you are physically attacked. Otherwise, it is considered a felony or at least an "over-defense".

Under this definition, with tremendous confidence, almost all fights begin with a punch. And yes, I have seen many fights in my life due to my upbringing and the place I was raised in. Even if you search through youtube videos, a fight almost always start with a punch. As a matter of fact, I have never seen a fight that doesn't. This is why boxing is the most effective because defense against a punch is the first likely thing you have to do. You can talk about all these offensive techniques but if you can't defend the initial attack, then it's pointless.

If you live in a country where you are allowed to defend yourself before the opponent physically attacks you, then obviously "below the belt" techniques work due to its nature. In that case you are right and perhaps I am talking about this purely from the given situation that I am in because I live in a county where that is not allowed (unless you are a woman, then you are allowed to do anything ).

The most efficient martial art techniques are those that are not allowed in sport competitions (such as UFC), simply because they are too dangerous. Some examples, which do not require a lot of skill and physical strength, are
- groin kick
- attacking the opponent's eyes with your fingers
- grabbing the opponent's hand fingers and breaking them by pulling in the right direction

Have you actually attempted this? Have you seen people attempting this in a fight? Because I have seen two fights where one of them attempted a groin attack, and eye-gouging, respectively, and both failed simply because it doesn't land on the right spot.

It usually doesn't work. If it does, you are just lucky. But relying on luck is not the best defense. Remember, what you have just described is indeed a "simple" technique, but a technique that is hard to do spar with because like you said, it is too dangerous to practice.

If you can't practice the technique, then the chance is that you will not be able to execute it effectively. The opponent is not a stationary target that cannot react to an attack. It is also a target that attacks you. A groin kick, is even worse of a technique because most kicks are telegraphed. A groin grab during grappling situation, however, is a viable option.Attacking the eyes are equally difficult because eyes react faster than anything else. Once one sees something coming toward his/her eyes, the first thing they do is to flinch.

I have not seen a fight where one grabs the opponents fingers and break them by pulling them in the wrong direction. However, this is equally ineffective as it is quite easy to break free from a grab of fingers. What would you first do if one grabs your hands, forearm, fingers, etc? You pull it away, right?To put this in another way, it's like shooting paper targets with your gun and think that you are actually combat capable. Yes, you get used to using the gun itself so you will improve. But in actual CQC situations, it is well established that those who practiced against actual human with airsoft guns are more capable soldiers, hence why several militaries employ them. Both of these drills needs to be performed to be effective. Just because you can hit the center of the targets that does not shoot back at you, does not necessarily make you a combat effective soldier because in reality, the opponents do shoot back at you.

 

[Dale]

My definition of a fight starting is when one is physically attacking in a way that can cause injuries

Both pushing and grabbing can cause injuries.

This is why boxing is the most effective because defense against a punch is the first likely thing you have to do.

Most martial arts teach defense against a punch. It is hardly an exclusive skill to boxing.

 

[HAYAO]

Both pushing and grabbing can cause injuries.

If you are talking about "can" then anything can cause injuries. But not many people will be arrested for misdemeanor or felony for grabbing or pushing people, while punching will probably do.

Most martial arts teach defense against a punch. It is hardly an exclusive skill to boxing.

You completely missed the point though. How much practice is actually done? How much sparring is done? How exclusively are you trained in defending against a punch or executing one? Do you think a kickboxer can win against a boxer in a street fights, where "actual" fighting mostly start out punching?

EDIT: Basically, if one goes to a self-defense academy and another to a boxing gym and train the same amount of time, the one who went to the boxing gym will have a completely different mindset and composure to difficult situation during real life situation. One who goes to self-defense academy will probably have to learn quite a lot of new things that require tremendous amount of time to be of any practical use, much less the mindset and composure that would also be very important in real life situation.

 

[Dale]

How exclusively are you trained in defending against a punch or executing one?

Exclusive training is not necessarily advantageous here. Certainly it is not obviously advantageous.

Even accepting your “all fights start with a punch” premise/definition, all that is needed is a threshold of training that allows a reasonable chance of functioning beyond the initial punch. Almost any martial art offers that so any boxer’s advantage up to that point is not obvious, and may be minimal. Beyond that point a boxer no longer has any obvious advantage and may in fact have disadvantages due to the exclusive training.

If you are talking about "can" then anything can cause injuries.

It was your definition, not mine. Seems like your definition doesn’t accomplish what you want.

My definition would be that a fight starts at the first physical contact with malicious intent. If there is no physical contact then it is just an argument and if there is no malicious intent then it would be something else like a sport or an accident.

But not many people will be arrested for misdemeanor or felony for grabbing or pushing people, while punching will probably do.

So are you changing your definition from “can cause injuries” to “will be arrested”?

 

[morrobay]

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1....24373...0.0..0.0.0...0...gws-wiz.RBNXpDuCsg4

If we can compartmentalize this topic to just the physics then it is obvious that since the boxer rotates with the punch there is more force : = ma = m Δv/Δt.

 

[HAYAO]

Exclusive training is not necessarily advantageous here. Certainly it is not obviously advantageous.

Even accepting your “all fights start with a punch” premise/definition all that is needed is a threshold of training that allows a reasonable chance of functioning beyond the initial punch. Almost any martial art offers that so any boxer’s advantage up to that point is not obvious, and may be minimal. Beyond that point a boxer no longer has any obvious advantage and may in fact have disadvantages due to the exclusive training.

From your argument, there's a high chance that you have not seen many "street fights", much less experienced one. That's a good thing of course. You shouldn't. But I am not saying this simply from speculation but from watching many other people fight, in real life, people of different ages, culture (US and Japan), those videos out there, and even myself although I was only involved in a fight once. I am definitely not saying this to glorify myself (I "lost" the fight anyway) and act like a tough guy, but just simply stating a well-backed perspective.
I. What martial arts can you get the best out of with the least amount of time?

The criteria should be: How much practical sparring can you get?

Bobman pointed out a very important thing in preparation for a self-defense: Reflexes, mental attitude, and adapting to what the other person is doing. I have seen tons of boxers, kickboxers, and MMA practitioners practicing with perfect fundamentals on mits and sandbags, but most of those fundamentals go out of the window for their first 10 to 20 sparring sessions. To be in a real-life situation is like that. If you don't have the mental attitude and aren't mentally prepared to defend, then whatever you learn is going to be useless. You need to spar a lot so that you get used to the situation, and thus can execute whatever you learned the way it is supposed to.So what are some martial arts that don't waste too much time on techniques and let's you spar a lot?

Boxing, Brazilian Jujitsu, Judo/wrestling, sport Sambo, (and maybe I am missing some).

Everything you learn in boxing is practical in self-defense. Punches, ducking, footworks, fitness, etc. They are all useful in many ways. There are no wasted time in learning any of these. And yet they offer you great amount of sparring, where reflex and timing is developed, and also allowing you to also be mentally ready. Boxing is a popular sport and a well established and competitive one as well. There are plenty of boxing gyms out there, so for practical reasons, it is high up there on the list. Obviously, if the fight is prolonged, the fight may become a grappling match where boxing is neutralized. And yes, there are some cases where a fight starts in a grappling match. Fortunately, unless you are up against a very experienced grappler, the chance is that you know how to keep distance if you practice boxing, but of course there is never a 100% guarantee.

You might think BJJ has too many techniques. You are right. They do. But you are allowed to spar a lot even in the earlier stages where you haven't learned all of the sweeps and chokes and etc. In an actual fight, knowing only few submission techniques is more than enough actually. Rear-naked chokes and armbars are certainly good. Unfortunately, grappling-type martial arts are one of those where physical size differences directly affect your performance, more so than boxing. Also the premise is that the opponent or you take the fight to a grappling match, which usually happen in the latter stage of the fight when opponent realize that striking is ineffective. You be making a gamble to hope that the fight is going to start as a grappling match.

Judo/wrestling is also a good option. They also have variety of ways to take one down, but learning few of them and sparring can effectively get you what you need. Once they are down, you can do whatever you want (punch, armbar, stomp, whatever). Similar to BJJ, however, physical size difference and the situation where it is somewhat guaranteed that the fight is going to be a grappling match.

Sport sambo is like judo combined with locking submissions (no chokes though). So in a nutshell, it falls somewhere between BJJ and Judo/wrestling.Why not Krav Maga, MMA, Combat Sambo, Muay Thai/kickboxing/karate, etc.?

All of these martial arts have significant learning curve, save for Muay Thai/kickboxing/karate. There are various situational techniques that are taught in these sport, so much that you will have to spend more time in actually learning them than in using them in spar. Also, some of the techniques are impractical and very rarely seen in an actual fight. Learning this is a waste of time for practical reasons. Muay Thai or kickboxing might sound similar to boxing, but kicks are quite useless in a fight as several people pointed out, unless you are very very well trained and the opponent is a complete novice. Kicks are more telegraphed, keeps you off balance, and no guarantee that it will be any effective compared to punches which tend to be more accurate. Taekwando is similarly useless for the same reason.II. Boxing, BJJ, Judo/wrestling, sport Sambo. Which is the best?

This is where observing street fights become important.

Some attacks are in form of a surprise attack, which you have very little option and no matter what martial arts you practice, it is going to mean very little. Yes, Krav Maga teaches defense against surprise attacks, but a "surprise attack" is termed that way for a reason. If you are walking in the streets and someone grabs you, the chance is, you cannot figure out at the moment whether it is an attack or not. (It could just be your friend). You need some time to comprehend the situation before you can attempt any countermeasures. At that point, the opponent probably already finished the initial attack on you. So nothing will really work in this case in reality.

Majority of other attacks happen after an heated argument. When shoving and pushing and verbal threats comes, try to de-escalate the situation by talking it out or better, just run away. If it does not de-escalate, then what you should anticipate more than anything else is that a punch may come at any moment. Why a punch? Because that's what angry people do. They attempt to damage you the hardest way in the shortest amount of time possible. Some of the people on this thread claims that they would be calm and smart enough to engage in a more witty ways. Yes, it can happen but it rarely does. It is better if you prepare yourself for the most common form of attack than something not. You can train to be good at juggling soccer balls but what is the priority for that during a soccer match? Same thing.

The biggest priority at this point is not to get hurt. If you can run, run. If you can't, then anticipate the most common form of initial attack, a punch. So at this point, which is the best martial arts to practice to defend this? Well not BJJ nor Judo/wrestling nor sport sambo. Boxing, right? Boxing is a defense/offense combined sport. So you can come back with your own strikes. You also have mental readiness in taking the fight that will get physical because you spar a lot.

The worst situation is that you just take the first punch and you are knocked out, possibly permanently injured or death in the worst case. BJJ, Judo, Krav Maga, is meaningless here. But you may have better chance of survival if you used the time practicing boxing instead.III. What's next? What if it doesn't work?

Usually, when one is overwhelmed with the striking ability of the other (if not knocked out), one does one of the three things: quit (just cover up until you are done, run away, or verbally submit), take you down, or attempt grabbing a weapon.

Grappling game do happen after attacker's first few attempts fails and yes, you sometimes do get caught. As an additional measures you may like to learn BJJ as a secondary option. Practice boxing first and get good at it first. Then consider also practicing BJJ.

If one grabs a weapon, then most of the martial arts mentioned here is more or less the same in terms of effectiveness.If we have to learn BJJ and stuff anyway, then why not just learn MMA or Krav Maga or Combat Sambo from the beginning?

Because it is a jack of all trades master of none. You will need to spend years and years of practice and spars to be able to effectively deliver them in the real-life scenario. You can use the same amount of time mastering boxing and then BJJ than learn whole tons of extra that you might not be able to master. You look at the Krav Maga instruction videos with the instructors doing flashy moves to disable the opponents. I would like you to try mastering one of them and use it. The chance is, it takes tremendous amount of time even if you know what the opponent is going to come at you with. And that is just ONE situation-specific technique. How long will it take to master defending against a punch, which the punch is probably less telegraphed and faster with some element of surprise than the one shown in the video?
IV. Okay great! Boxing forever! Are we done?

No, one more thing. Boxing as the base for self-defense has its own intrinsic disadvantage as well. You can break your hands. This tend to happen for those with tremendous punching power, or those who have just started the sport. The former for obvious reasons, and the latter because the delivery of the punch tend to be not fully optimized that you hit with the wrong parts of your hands.So why are you still recommending boxing?

Because there are too many other advantages than that. The mind game that it can play with your opponent once showing they discover that striking with you is totally futile, is also quite important. The confident look in you and the composure you gain from sparring often will discourage your opponent.V. What if I am a women?

This is a tough question. To be honest, I don't know. I have not seen an actual situation in real life of a man attacking a woman...only on news and youtube and I can only judge based on that.

The above argument holds for a man vs man situation. Woman vs man situation tend to be much different from that and can be diverse. Man's intention to harm another man is usually simple: they want to steal something or something happened and is angry. However, when it comes to man's intention to harm another woman, the intention can vary. It could be to steal, it could be to molest, it could be to kidnap, it could be a heated conversion. The form of attack also varies.

Women tend to be justified more than men in defending themselves while taking the initiatives, and weapons are also justified more than the cases for men. In that case, you might want to stick with pepper sprays, electroshock weapons, and stuff like that than be physical. I don't know, but I would advise wrestling/judo or BJJ if you really want to learn martial arts. At least in Japan, man striking a woman is much less frequent than a man striking a man. If you don't really need to worry about punches (and kicks) then I say it is more practical to practice grappling instead.

The problem is that grappling tend to lead to bulkier build, which is not what all women wants. Aikido and Krav Maga is good, but it is way too situation-specific that mastering it to the level of practicality takes too much time.

So are you changing your definition from “can cause injuries” to “will be arrested”?

My definition stays.

Do you think it's complete nonsense that people pushing another is usually not considered a misdemeanor or felony whereas punching is. There is a reason why there is such difference. It was to make a point, not changing the definition like you have just unfairly did to me by playing around with my words in your favor and being nit-picky.

Everything is a "can". You can say to another person that they are stupid and the guy can just faint because of the shock, hit his head on a concrete and die. Sure, it "can" happen, right? Please don't blow it out of proportion to make other people's statement sound wrong. That's not a fair thing to do.

 

[Rive]

Everything you learn in boxing is practical in self-defense. ... Boxing as the base for self-defense has its own intrinsic disadvantage as well.

One of that is it won't defend really well against kicks. Yeah, I know it was already mentioned that:

kicks are quite useless in a fight as several people pointed out, unless you are very very well trained and the opponent is a complete novice.

That is right. But boxing is what makes one novice when it is about kicks. And actually, useless or not nine from ten will try kicking. Movies and such just carved it into everybody (and takes effort to remove the urge). The more experienced ones will keep it short and fast, but even so. There will be kicks. Kicks should be expected.