7foldsofpaper said:90% of Martial Arts has to do with the master. Most people think Kung Fu is impracticle, and then some say Jujitsu isn't, then there are people who think Tae Kwon Do isn't. The problem is, the person who is teaching the student.
Now I have done a few martial arts, I have been a practictioner of both Thai Boxing and Tae Kwon Do for 7 years now and I have found some very awesome teachers. They showed me practicability, the physics behind it. Where to hit with maximum damage for maximum results, and used it on many occasions in Tournaments ( Sunshine Games, U.S Open, Cape Coral Martial Arts Institute ). All I am saying is that in Martial Arts there is a lot of garbage, but there is a lot of very nice techniques that do some wicked things. And if you guys don't believe in Dim Bok, knife hand strike someone ( Fingers first ) in the jugular.
Fight Science and Human Wrecking Ball have proved a lot of the theories and myths about Martial Arts. These people DO break bricks and concrete that is not weakened, not prestressed, without any fancy techniques, but pure brutal strength.
Because they were taught, and learned not from 'The Best' but from people who knew what they were talking about.
big man said:There have been some pretty interesting fighting styles mentioned here that I've never heard of before. I appreciate good martial arts, but to tell you the honest I don't think that I'd want to choose anything like karate or muay thai if I was wanting to do a martial art. I'd want to do something that deals extensively with grappling and close quarter fighting. I just think that this would be the most realistic and most useful thing to learn.
Something that I've noticed a lot (especially on the internet) is that many people think that if they become a professional in a martial art they will be able to defend/take on anything. Some people even think that they can beat someone who has 40-50 kg on them. I mean if you take Jet Li in Fearless as an example. There is no way in hell that he'd win in a fight against that incredibly huge guy (they fight in a boxing ring). It'd be like hitting a wall pretty much and he wouldn't necessarily be as incredibly slow as he was in the movie. But after seeing that movie and many others like it, people believe that it is possible. Just amazes me really...
whatta said:a gun.
p.s.: never mind 10 characters padding
7foldsofpaper said:a well placed punch. It takes 0.8 seconds for a person to recognize a stimulus, it takes the average fighter 0.18 recognize a stimulus. Stimulus in this sense would be a gun, now by the time you recognize you can pull the trigger, we have already reacted. ;D
Please stop posting.7foldsofpaper said:It is very possible to take on a person who is much larger-stronger on you. It is just how well you were taught to defend against an opponent. It only takes 1000 pounds per square inch to knock out an opponent in a head strike, smash the kidneys, destroy someones throat, and so on.
DanP said:And you would be dead, and buried 6 feet under.
leroyjenkens said:There's other applicable martial arts, but some are just old martial arts based on theory. The problem with traditional martial arts is most of them aren't battle tested.
Pattonias said:I would disagree here. If you do some research you'll learn that nearly all forms of martial arts were battle tested in their time. As absurd as some forms may seem, they all had purpose.
leroyjenkens said:Battle tested and improved upon? Or battle tested, but nothing was changed?
Any martial art that requires you to grab someone's hand as they punch at you, obviously hasn't been battle tested, since that simply doesn't work.
I actually wonder if a lot of traditional martial arts were even intended for combat. I think a lot of them were just a form of dance or artistic expression and not even meant to fight with.
leroyjenkens said:I actually wonder if a lot of traditional martial arts were even intended for combat. I think a lot of them were just a form of dance or artistic expression and not even meant to fight with.
Greg Bernhardt said:Ever watch karate or tae-kwon-do in the olympics? it's actually boring as hell because both fighters are so good they cancel out any cool kicks or moves and have to revert to 100% strategy and speed.
Depends on their style. If they're a wrestler, they can take the boxer out of his element and he's useless, but if they're a boxer themselves, they'd be at a disadvantage.You ever watch UFC? They are all trained in some form of martial arts... I'm quite sure they can kick most boxers asses no problem.
Everytime the olympics is on, I only see them show rowing or something boring. I never get to see the Tae Kwon Do or Judo. But I love watching that stuff.Ever watch karate or tae-kwon-do in the olympics? it's actually boring as hell because both fighters are so good they cancel out any cool kicks or moves and have to revert to 100% strategy and speed.
Pattonias said:If you take anyone out of the element that they trained for they would not perform as well. If you took an MMA into a TKD point sparring match he would not perform as well do to the fact that the tactics are totally different. I know this because I have fought guys with MMA background in point matches and done very well. The guy had devastating kicks, but I was well capable of blocking and countered with speed at light contact. If it was an MMA fight he would have destroyed me. Once we went to the ground, my limited experience in this area would have faired very poorly.
A boxer would have difficulty in a kickboxing competition, but would destroy a kickboxer in a boxing competition. The tactics are what really determine the effectiveness of a fighter.
I would have to say that MMA would be best at street fighting as the fighter is best able to adapt to the different possible scenarios that occur in a fight without rules. MMA in itself is not a style. MMA is exactly as it is described, as a mix of different styles to develop an overall better fighter.
My original point was what would be good for self defense. There's no rules on the street, so a TKD guy who does a bunch of light kicks on the opponent wouldn't be very good.If you take anyone out of the element that they trained for they would not perform as well. If you took an MMA into a TKD point sparring match he would not perform as well do to the fact that the tactics are totally different. I know this because I have fought guys with MMA background in point matches and done very well. The guy had devastating kicks, but I was well capable of blocking and countered with speed at light contact. If it was an MMA fight he would have destroyed me. Once we went to the ground, my limited experience in this area would have faired very poorly.
A boxer would have difficulty in a kickboxing competition, but would destroy a kickboxer in a boxing competition. The tactics are what really determine the effectiveness of a fighter.
Most scenarios you'll find are going to be people trying to punch you. I don't think I've ever seen a street fight where the guy goes for a takedown or tries a judo throw. If someone is trying to attack you on the street, they're throwing punches 99% of the time. If you're trained in boxing, that person is in trouble.I would have to say that MMA would be best at street fighting as the fighter is best able to adapt to the different possible scenarios that occur in a fight without rules. MMA in itself is not a style. MMA is exactly as it is described, as a mix of different styles to develop an overall better fighter.
Again, what's going to come is most likely going to be punches. If you want to learn self defense, it's highly unlikely you're going to have to defend an armbar on the street.This is what I was getting at. Even if you learned some Jiu jitsu but mixed it up with some street fighting styles it would be better than learning boxing. I'm not saying a boxer would lose in a street fight but I think a MMA fighter would be better prepared for what's going to come.
People always talk about this. What is it, eye gouges and groin kicks?Something even BETTER than MMA though would be Krav Maga. Of course using this style of fighting would be dangerous because it's a 'no-nonsense' type of martial arts. You are fighting to kill or be killed basically.
leroyjenkens said:My original point was what would be good for self defense. There's no rules on the street, so a TKD guy who does a bunch of light kicks on the opponent wouldn't be very good.
Most scenarios you'll find are going to be people trying to punch you. I don't think I've ever seen a street fight where the guy goes for a takedown or tries a judo throw. If someone is trying to attack you on the street, they're throwing punches 99% of the time. If you're trained in boxing, that person is in trouble.
Again, what's going to come is most likely going to be punches. If you want to learn self defense, it's highly unlikely you're going to have to defend an armbar on the street.
JuJitsu is very effective, but on the street, if you're taking someone to the ground and trying to armbar them or something, someone else could come up and just kick you right in the head. It's unpredictable on the street, so you should probably stay on your feet.
Not to mention you may not be able to take down the huge guy attacking you. He may weigh 400 pounds, so it's going to be really hard to take him down to try your submissions in the first place.
People always talk about this. What is it, eye gouges and groin kicks?
It's very unlikely you're going to kill somebody with a punch. If someone is trying to attack you, there's no reason for you to go out of your way to try to stop the fight without hurting your opponent. That's how you end up getting hurt or killed yourself.If your a boxer and you punch someone to knock them out you could very well kill them, even if you don't kill them charges could be laid upon you. Thats why in most fights for self-defense it's best to make your opponent get the least amount of hits on you and to stop the fight asap. Which you can do more effectively I think in MMA.
That's a generalization that doesn't make much sense. Why does a MMA fighter have a huge technique advantage over random strangers on the street, while a boxer only has a slight technique advantage?On the streets an MMA fighter has a huge technique advantage and more than likely strength. A boxer more than likely only has a slight technique advantage and lots of strength
What's a freestyle fight? Anything goes? MMA fighters would be more likely to win that, depending on their style, because they can just exploit one of the many weaknesses of the boxer.That's why when boxers fight MMA fighters in a freestyle fight the boxer normally will lose.
Pattonias said:If you take anyone out of the element that they trained for they would not perform as well. If you took an MMA into a TKD point sparring match he would not perform as well do to the fact that the tactics are totally different.
Pattonias said:contact. If it was an MMA fight he would have destroyed me. Once we went to the ground, my limited experience in this area would have faired very poorly.
Sorry! said:Important aspects of a street fight are ground fighting and joint control IMO.
Evo said:The fact that you made a statement that simply wasn't true. Are you going to say that someone can't become proficient in a simple type of self defense? You can become proficient in whatever you wish, it does not only have to be something difficult. The person only wanted "some ability to defend myself", he wasn't asking to become a black belt in five easy lessons. Your response was rather arrogant, IMHO.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I said you can become proficient in something simple. I have no idea what you're rambling on about. And you're referring to a FOUR YEAR OLD POST.Virtuous said:I am sorry but he's not. There are so many aspects to combat, It's not simple, and it's not easy, It's not something I can really put in words. You have to train your body over and over again. There is no room for mistakes in a self-defense scenario. You have to quick, strong, and highly responsive. Practical knowledge of body mechanics, situation techniques which success depends on how well you preform them. That's not a simple task. It's not like making a mistake in choreography. It's possible that your performance is matter of life and death. You never know what you are up against. You can't equate it to to many activities.
If you want proof, take a self defense class and then defend yourself against a mixed martial artist who has been doing martial arts for only 2 years. Practical experience is lacking. It's something that you have to experience to understand. He's not trying to be rude or arrogant at all.
Virtuous said:If you want proof, take a self defense class and then defend yourself against a mixed martial artist who has been doing martial arts for only 2 years. Practical experience is lacking. It's something that you have to experience to understand. He's not trying to be rude or arrogant at all.
The person only wanted "some ability to defend myself", he wasn't asking to become a black belt in five easy lessons.
Sorry! said:When your shopping at the mall and someone randomly attacks you for whatever reason.
Equate said:This notion alone is very wrong.
Where the hell do you live? LA?
Virtuous said:I am sorry but he's not. There are so many aspects to combat, It's not simple, and it's not easy, It's not something I can really put in words. You have to train your body over and over again. There is no room for mistakes in a self-defense scenario. You have to quick, strong, and highly responsive. Practical knowledge of body mechanics, situation techniques which success depends on how well you preform them. That's not a simple task. It's not like making a mistake in choreography. It's possible that your performance is matter of life and death. You never know what you are up against. You can't equate it to to many activities.
If you want proof, take a self defense class and then defend yourself against a mixed martial artist who has been doing martial arts for only 2 years. Practical experience is lacking. It's something that you have to experience to understand. He's not trying to be rude or arrogant at all.
dduardo said:I'm a black belt in Tae Kwan Do and there is no way i'll be able to defend myself with the techniques I've learned. It is more of a show with memorized routines and nothing really practically. In terms of a workout, it is great, but for real life encounters I would encourage you to pursue some other form of karate. If you ever had a chance to watch Bruce Lee's biography he talks a lot about being flexible in your style and not just master one type of technique since the real world can be unpredictible. You have to constanting be changing style in order to react properly. Bruce created his own form of karate known as Gung Fu in order to address the practical karate. People like Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Chuck Norris were personally taught Gung Fu by Bruce Lee.
If all else fails you can carry around one of those high powered rifles. I'm sure no one will mess try to mess with you
So basically, with that statement, you're right, they won't. But the concepts behind the techniques will help you. Learn what the techniques are teaching you, not just the techniques themselves.dduardo said:I'm a black belt in Tae Kwan Do and there is no way i'll be able to defend myself with the techniques I've learned.
You're talking to someone that hasn't been here in years.Kronos5253 said:That's incorrect. He created a style called "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeet_Kun_Do" ", which translates to "The way of the intercepting fist". The main influence on it is Wing Chun.
Also, and instructors should tell you this, but very very few do.. The techniques you learn in most martial arts classes like Tae Kwan Do, Karate, Kung Fu, Wing Chun, etc, are strictly for muscle memory. Generally speaking they're not supposed to be used in a real life encounter. They're created so that in a bad situation, it takes little to no thought for your muscles to counter an attack. It's muscle memory. It may not be the form/technique that you're taught, but it will be close enough, or an adaptation of what you've been teaching your brain/muscles to do for years. That's the entire concept behind the forms and techniques that you're taught in class. You're not going to get into a fight and stand in the horse stance and go through your forms, that's ridiculous! But your muscles will react basically involuntarily. There are helpful things like your stance (which is usually 60-40 back leg to front leg), because of balance and power, and the concepts behind the forms, like throwing a punch correctly to get the necessary force out of it. For instance, not just swinging your arm to throw a punch, because your arm doesn't have much weight to it, but instead rotating from the hips and drawing your power from your back foot, through your back, and using the rotation of your hips and the transfer of weight from your back to front foot to maximize the force applied to the target. That's an example of the type of information you should get out of doing forms and listening to your instructor (assuming he's a decent instructor).
So basically, with that statement, you're right, they won't. But the concepts behind the techniques will help you. Learn what the techniques are teaching you, not just the techniques themselves.