Choosing a Martial Art

Kevin_Lowe said:
I've said as much before. Living as I do the odds of my ever needing martial arts skills to defend myself or the people I care about are close to zero, and if I was genuinely concerned about my safety I'd move house rather than train up.
Click to expand...

I didn't state that to really contradict what anyone in the thread was saying. I was simply offering my constructive opinion on the merits of Capoeira.

Kevin_Lowe said:
However the fact is that for whatever screwed-up psychological reason, be it irrational fear or insecurity, a lot of people do want to train in something that will allow them to defend themselves effectively. While the reasons for that desire may be irrational, if you do happen to have that desire it's not irrational to look at the available evidence to see what kind of training actually works.
Click to expand...

Meh. Most reasonably-experienced trainers are going to point out to prospective students that the class isn't a "learn to beat people up" class anyway, so there's a soft weeding process already in place. Anyone not willing to do actual research and learning on a prospective style is perfectly welcome to go to Wimp Lo's School of Beating People Up.

Kevin_Lowe said:
The other side of the coin, however, is that if all you want to do is get fit then a general gym workout is far more effective than MA training. Working on weights and exercise machines for an hour and a half beats the hell out of doing kata and crap for an hour and a half. Do aerobics if you want to be able to move. If you want to do MA, it's for a reason other than simple fitness. My guess is that more often than not it's because you want to be able to beat someone up.
Click to expand...

Actually, I disagree with this premise. Tai Chi is very good for the middle-aged or people who have physical issues to get a more well-rounded workout for flexibility and ease of movement, where a lot of gym-centric workouts are going to focus on specific areas and be comprised of a lot of repetition (which can be hell on joints). In a few weeks I'm going to start learning some Wing Chun and some animal styles as a method of getting fit where doing my normal weight routine has mostly gotten me bored and disinterested. There are advantages to taking an MA class for fitness above a gym workout, but it's not going to be in isolating area X or toning muscle group Y, if that's a person's goal. The advantages mostly include an interesting environment, a variety that works on flexibility and poise (something far lacking in many routines I've tried in gyms), and the more social tone of a classroom environment versus a room full of individuals with different goals. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, and depending on one's goals and disposition I would say it depends on which would be more recommended, but I wouldn't consider a general gym workout to be more effective for everyone.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
The other side of the coin, however, is that if all you want to do is get fit then a general gym workout is far more effective than MA training.
Click to expand...
The most effective exercise is the one you enjoy enough (or dislike little enough) to keep doing. How theoretically effective it would be to spend a certain amount of time doing any exercise becomes irrelevant if you end up not actually spending that time on it.
 
Of the two that I've had any experience with, boxing and judo were both very good in terms of practical self-defense and all around health benefits.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
I've said as much before. Living as I do the odds of my ever needing martial arts skills to defend myself or the people I care about are close to zero, and if I was genuinely concerned about my safety I'd move house rather than train up.
Click to expand...

If you're a girl, sexual assault is pretty prevalent and knowing BJJ would probably help in a lot of situations. If you're a boy, not so much need for it. Muggings and whatnot will rarely allow you the opportunity of a fair fight. Bar fights maybe, but that's not really "self defense".

Although, if you're going to train in martial arts for the fun and exercise, you might as well be learning skills that would be practical in a one on one fight.
 
As opposed to skills that would not be practical in that situation?
 
cornsail said:
As opposed to skills that would not be practical in that situation?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant as opposed to what other situations? You seem to imply that there are martial arts more suited to taking on multiple opponents.
 
Last edited:
cornsail said:
Track and field is a martial art?
Click to expand...

Oh yes. Ancient Greek fighting techniques. But make sure you find a dojo (called "sports club" in the art's lingo) who lets you practice realistically against resisting opponents and doesn't buy into all the woo concepts such as 'fair play' and 'sportsmanship.'
 
thaiboxerken said:
Sorry, I meant as opposed to what other situations? You seem to imply that there are martial arts more suited to taking on multiple opponents.
Click to expand...

No I meant to imply that martial arts are only suited to one on one fighting (I could be wrong, that's just AFAIK), but I'd rather learn something that is actually practical in that situation along with all the other benefits, even if it's not a situation that's likely to occur.
 
Leif Roar said:
Oh yes. Ancient Greek fighting techniques. But make sure you find a dojo (called "sports club" in the art's lingo) who lets you practice realistically against resisting opponents and doesn't buy into all the woo concepts such as 'fair play' and 'sportsmanship.'
Click to expand...

Your joke is lost on me. Oh well.
 
Don't let it get to you, TBK. It'll just turn the thread into a peeing contest, or some shmoe is going to come in here waving his wee-wee about how the stuff he learned is superior because he was taught how to engage eight guys at once, even if they were armed with machetes in one hand and a Bowie knife in the other. Blindfolded.

It's really not worth it.
 
So confused... all I was trying to say is that was that if you're going to learn martial arts techniques they might as well be ones that are actually practical in a fight.

If you know techniques that are effective vs five guys, fine more power to you. I just wouldn't have thought that knowing a martial art would make any difference in that situation.
 
It might. There are so many variables.... Fights do not take place as they do in martial-arts movies, of course, with the bad guys obligingly taking on the hero one at a time, all to be serially defeated with quick techniques...
More likely is something along the lines of getting caught up in a bar fight, civil disturbance, or "wilding" situation where a number of comparatively untrained individuals are being vicious but not particularly skillful.
The key would be to maximize survival. Using quick, very damaging techniques that would make it costly for the group to continue the attack. A weapon would be best, of course, improvised or not.
Otherwise, knee kicks, throat/eye jabs, powerful infighting techniques like elbow and knee blows...
With a bit of luck augmented by skill, a group may decide that an easier victim would be preferrable....

This is one of the problems with boxing, of course; what do you do at "inside" range?What do you do if you are grappling or taken down? Many boxers in exhibition matches have been embarrassed by wrestlers....
Points not made in all the above include:

1. Any actual study of any martial art for the purposes of self-defense should include instruction in the legal aspects. Self-defense law is complex and not uniform across the country or even across local areas. It behooves the student to become fully aware of law in their area, and not only the "letter" of the law but how cases are actually adjudicated.
2. Any self-defense instruction that does not include weapons is not being realistic.
I'm not referring to "classic" martial-arts weapons sets as you see in competition. Most of these are for show only. One should train to respond to the use of weapons by one's opponent, to using improvised weapons that might become available, and to any weapons one might decide to carry for the purpose of self-defense.
The comments under #1 above apply in spades to the use of weapons, which greatly up the ante as to possible criminal proceedings.
 
Bikewer said:
More likely is something along the lines of getting caught up in a bar fight, civil disturbance, or "wilding" situation where a number of comparatively untrained individuals are being vicious but not particularly skillful.
The key would be to maximize survival. Using quick, very damaging techniques that would make it costly for the group to continue the attack. A weapon would be best, of course, improvised or not.
Otherwise, knee kicks, throat/eye jabs, powerful infighting techniques like elbow and knee blows...
With a bit of luck augmented by skill, a group may decide that an easier victim would be preferrable....

This is one of the problems with boxing, of course; what do you do at "inside" range?What do you do if you are grappling or taken down? Many boxers in exhibition matches have been embarrassed by wrestlers....
Points not made in all the above include:
Click to expand...

Grappling by it’s very nature takes away most striking techniques, plus grapplers have can typically train at full speed and power against a resisting opponent using all their available techniques with reasonably low risk of injury. This makes for a pretty big advantage in any type of staged competition. Grappling techniques are not the best choice for a real street fight because you can’t count on everyone simply standing back and letting you go one on one.

The catch-22 is that the techniques that are most applicable to a real street/bar fight are the least amenable to teach/train. Their intent is to cause serious injury quickly so if you do train at full speed/power someone will get injured and the training will be over. Conversely if you don’t train using these techniques at full speed you probably will not be able to execute them in a real fight.

Consequently the person who wins these real fights normally be the people who have been in a lot of real fights, or are simply strong/fast enough to charge one person at a time and overwhelm them quickly enough to avoid being jumped from behind.
 
cornsail said:
Why, what martial arts do you know of that are effective vs multiple opponents?
Click to expand...

Ones that emphasise mobility (like boxing) to try to avoid getting cornered, that teach fast recoverable attacks (like boxing) and get you used to being hit (like boxing). Boxing would be a good example.
I'd say "improve your horribly long odds" rather than "effective" tbh.
It's an entertaining area when you see some of the contrived situations some styles show to demonstrate their worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom