Choosing a Martial Art

[Segnosaur]

That said, I believe they also place a great deal of faith in low-percentage moves like eye and groin attacks, which are great if they work but which require the kind of precise muscle control that is the first thing to go out the window when adrenaline hits.

First of all... what makes you think that any martial artist (one that's just taken courses, and has never been confronted by an attacker "in the street") will be able to perform when their life is really in danger? I rather suspect people will react different when in a boxing ring/on a judo mat compared to when they are attacked by some drunk in the local pub. If you are going to criticize martial arts like Ju Jitsu because people perform differently under pressure, you should also be willing to criticize Judo/Boxing for the same reasons.

Secondly, keep in mind that, at least in Ju Jitsu, eye and groin attacks do not have to be very accurate. Basically, you use whatever 'targets' are available. You don't go out of your way to do an eye strike/groin strike. For example, if I'm grabbed in a bear hug, I can knee the guy. My leg is pretty much in the perfect place. Or if that doesn't work, I can head-butt them. Again, assuming I could remember the move, there is very little that I can do to miss.

Even in situations where I could conceivably miss, in many cases it doesn't matter.... If I try a kick-to-the-groin and I miss, I still probably hit the person's knees, or something that's going to at least hurt them.

A popular conceit amongst woos is that what a martial art is "designed for" matters. It doesn't.

The fact that some "woos" believe something doesn't automatically make things untrue. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

Judo was designed to be a safe sport, and I'd back a judoka over someone who wasted their time on krav maga.

You seem to be quite down on Krav Maga. However, it is taught in the Israeli army, and versions are taught to police and military forces around the world. Do you think all those people are deluding themselves as to their effectiveness? Or do you think that the people who are actually risking their lives and who may actually have combat experience might have taken the effort to ensure their tactics are effective.

That's exactly right. Judo is jujitsu with the dangerous elements removed or defanged, but because it's been defanged you can train it with full speed and power against a resisting opponent.
...
Oh absolutely. There are tonnes of techniques which are far more immediately effective than judo throws. The problem is that until we create robot training partners we can't train those techniques properly, so the guy who spends all day practising a jujitsu technique which would break someone's arm is going to get reamed by the guy who spends all day practising a judo technique that just slams him into the mat.

You know, I wonder, if that Judo guy ever gets into a real street fight, does he tell his opponents "Ok, we can fight... just don't kick and punch me because I haven't learned how to defend against that". Or do you think the boxer who gets into a bar brawl tells people "punching only... don't kick, and if I fall you have to let me back up"?

This has been mentioned to you before, but you've never addressed the point...Real fights have no rules. Judo/Boxing/etc. do have rules. The more rules you put in to prevent injury the less it resembles what could happen in a 'real fight'. And while the person may have experience fighting someone under 'controlled' conditions safely, the less experience they'll have dealing with real-world situations.

By the way, it should be noted that during one of my courses, they actually brought in an instructor who teaches various police forces in the region. You'd figure the cops, with their lives on the line, would pick something that 'works'.

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.

I recognize that I live in a safe neighborhood in a safe city and that is very little chance that I will encounter any real 'danger'. But the chance is still not non-zero. I also recognize that if I ever got into a real fight, even with my training, I may panic and not use my skills properly (although the same goes with every martial art).

However, all things considered, I'd rather improve my chances of survival (even if it only has 0.0001% of making a difference) than not.

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.

Yes, if all I wanted to do was get fit then a gym would be better. Problem is, many people find working out to be 'boring'. MA training has the benefits of both social interaction, plus scheduled classes (so you don't fall into the whole "don't feel like it today, I'll go tomorrow" trap.) in addition to the admittedly tiny chance that it might be useful for protection

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

First of all... what makes you think that any martial artist (one that's just taken courses, and has never been confronted by an attacker "in the street") will be able to perform when their life is really in danger? I rather suspect people will react different when in a boxing ring/on a judo mat compared to when they are attacked by some drunk in the local pub. If you are going to criticize martial arts like Ju Jitsu because people perform differently under pressure, you should also be willing to criticize Judo/Boxing for the same reasons.

As I said earlier, the evidence is that people who train with full speed and power against resisting opponents have a significantly greater that zero chance of making their techniques work as advertised under fight conditions. The non-contact woos fail completely at worst, and improvise terrible kickboxing at best.

Secondly, keep in mind that, at least in Ju Jitsu, eye and groin attacks do not have to be very accurate. Basically, you use whatever 'targets' are available. You don't go out of your way to do an eye strike/groin strike. For example, if I'm grabbed in a bear hug, I can knee the guy. My leg is pretty much in the perfect place. Or if that doesn't work, I can head-butt them. Again, assuming I could remember the move, there is very little that I can do to miss.

I suspect your experience of bear hugs comes from compliant stooges grabbing you in really bad bear hugs. Attacking the eyes or groin from an inferior grappling position is not a reliable escape method, take it from a guy who did grappling.

Even in situations where I could conceivably miss, in many cases it doesn't matter.... If I try a kick-to-the-groin and I miss, I still probably hit the person's knees, or something that's going to at least hurt them.

Rather than go into detailed what-if scenarios I'll just say that you've gotten some ideas about combat that seem very strange to me.

You seem to be quite down on Krav Maga. However, it is taught in the Israeli army, and versions are taught to police and military forces around the world. Do you think all those people are deluding themselves as to their effectiveness? Or do you think that the people who are actually risking their lives and who may actually have combat experience might have taken the effort to ensure their tactics are effective.

They used to teach SCARS to Navy Seals and it's unmitigated garbage. Fact is, most modern militaries do not engage in unarmed combat very often and for this reason they very sensibly do not spend much training time on unarmed combat skills.

If there is anyone in the Israeli army who has survived multiple life-or-death struggles unarmed I'd be very surprised, and I think their superior officers should have a word with them about making sure they bring a knife or better yet a gun with them next time they go into combat.

The "learn the deadly secret techniques of the Elite Special Forces!" is a woo-MA pitch line with the same value as "learn the deadly secret techniques of ninjas/shaolin/pirates/whatever".

I think most militaries teach MMA these days anyway.

You know, I wonder, if that Judo guy ever gets into a real street fight, does he tell his opponents "Ok, we can fight... just don't kick and punch me because I haven't learned how to defend against that". Or do you think the boxer who gets into a bar brawl tells people "punching only... don't kick, and if I fall you have to let me back up"?

This has been mentioned to you before, but you've never addressed the point...Real fights have no rules. Judo/Boxing/etc. do have rules. The more rules you put in to prevent injury the less it resembles what could happen in a 'real fight'. And while the person may have experience fighting someone under 'controlled' conditions safely, the less experience they'll have dealing with real-world situations.

While this is true, training with full speed and power against resisting opponents in an "unrealistic" setting has proven to be infinitely more effective than playing let's pretend about "realistic" situations. You can't learn to fight without fighting, and unrealistic fighting is still close enough to fighting to prepare you for the real thing. Whereas "realistic" play-acting prepares you for nothing except more play-acting.

By the way, it should be noted that during one of my courses, they actually brought in an instructor who teaches various police forces in the region. You'd figure the cops, with their lives on the line, would pick something that 'works'.

If that was how it worked, beat cops would have invented MMA decades before the UFC came along. (Same goes for the "military is teh deadly" fanboys - if the military was the crucible of realistic technique some people imagine it to be then they would have invented MMA long ago).

The problem, I think, is that before the UFC there was simply nothing resembling controlled and recorded testing. It took a lot of testing in realistic, recorded conditions before people could look at the assembled data and figure out what was working and what wasn't. Previous generations never had the opportunity we have had, to see the best in the world fight with cameras rolling. We're very lucky to be living in the era of evidence-based martial arts.

 

[luchog]

The only martial art one will ever need:

 

[Eddie Dane]

For the record. I don't want to be the next Bas Rutten.

But my philosophy is that as I'm training a martial art, I shouldn't waste my time and effort learning reflexes that I'm sure won't work in real world.

I don't go to bars very often and I haven't been to a big house party in over ten years.

So effectiveness is an extra. Like buying a big flash-light and knowing that in emergency, you could knock someone over the head with it.

 

[mikeyx]

Track and field is a martial art?

if you consider running away, maybe...

 

[mikeyx]

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.

Some play on multiple against one, ninpo and silat come to mind in various forms.

 

[Magyar]

One more thing: one should not confuse "martial art" with "self defense". The two are often conflated when they shouldn't be.

QFT - as many have said, fist and foremost you need to look around and find what is conveniently near you. Then look at those teachers and see who makes sense.

I don't want to start yet another MMA vs CMA thread, but I think that MMA stuff ( i include Brazilian and JJ in this) is much more for actual fighters, which you've said you are not. For these styles you HAVE to be quick, strong and aggressive BEFORE you start otherwise you will become at best mediocre.

IF you have a competent teacher, and one easy way to determine this is with a simple question - What is the real life application of this move? then really the only thing that matters is how comfortable you are in the environment.

I have a black belt in 2 different systems and have did style of CMA for about 10 year and
started a Mantis style about 3 years ago. Though these I have met many people practicing probably 60-70 different styles.

Every one of these styles have had a basic defend/attack/lock/break that was essentially identical. This should be no surprise as if you think about it, there are only so many ways a guy is going to punch or kick you and the human bodies mechanics only lend themselves to so many twists, counters etc to these.


Now even with in these there are ones that require you to think about what you are doing.
so you would need to do A against a right hook if your right foot is forward and B if your left is. But there are techniques where you do EXACTLY the same thing whether it's right hook or a left hook, whether your right or left foot is forward. THESE are self defense things MM is talking about and I still practice them pretty much every day. I know about 8 of these and have use 3 in real life one of which actually saved my life.

The rest of it, is physical fitness, and having something to do. I mean I know several real cool forms with a Kwan Dao and I can do then at pretty much live fighting speed. But REALY how likely is it that I am going to need a pole weapon designed for fighting armored cavalry anytime soon?

It does give me a great workout though swinging a 6' tall blade that weights nearly 15# around for 5 minutes at a time. It also teaches body awareness and balance, maintains flexibility etc all of which can be easily applied to real life every day events.

Ever miss a step when you're in a hurry or slip on ice? The flexibility or the instinct to roll or fall properly lets me walk away from stuff like that where others may break a bone or tear a ligament.

 

[Magyar]

Some play on multiple against one, ninpo and silat come to mind in various forms.

I think just about every good style with the exception of MMA stuff actually does this.
I know I've practiced it in all 4 styles I've studies. (this is one of my peeves against MMA - it's pretty damed hard to fight against more then one person when you're on the ground, unless getting your head pounded into the pavement is your idea of fighting back)

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why, what martial arts do you know of that are effective vs multiple opponents?

Before firearms, there were wars and almost all of these wars were fought using martial arts.

 

[Delvo]

Before firearms, there were wars and almost all of these wars were fought using martial arts.

This highlights something that's bugged me a little bit for years about calling them "martial" arts. That word refers to war, but what's studied in these classes is not warfare. They don't carry high-capacity, high-power guns. They don't wear kevlar or ceramic plates. They don't have explosives on hand. They don't practice finding cover or using it correctly, nevermind progressing through a building or other complex environment section by section as a coordinated group. Radios, armored vehicles, smoke & lasers for signaling to aircraft, night goggles, and first aid kits are nowhere around. They don't mention sleep schedules or watch duty planning.

Even if you want to take it out of modern context and talk about them as traditions from before a lot of modern advances happened, it's still not warfare we're talking about. They don't line up in formation with shields and spears or swords or even bladeless mock-ups, and practice having everyone move in the same way at the same time at the same speed when given certain commands by voice, flag, drum, whistle, or bugle. They don't drill on how to fix the formation immediately if something happens to one man in it, or how to turn and reorganize it to fight in a new direction, or how to cycle men on and off of the front shield line. They don't even mention marching or how to pack up and carry their gear.

Even a melee, the least organized kind of battle, still isn't really like the kinds of fight that people are training for in today's "martial" arts schools; they train for fights in which both opponents are facing each other, but in a chaotic mess of allies and enemies on the battlefield, you'd strike at enemies who had their backs turned to you while trying to watch your back and/or keep moving so they don't do that to you.

There just isn't anything truly martial about any modern martial art in anyway. This isn't even a matter of effectiveness; even an effective one is simply effective at some other goal, not war.

 

[roger]

I recommend 10mm or .40 S&W.

 

[rhtufts]

If your looking for a MA to be fun and get you in shape then choose Judo. I can not recommend Judo enough, it is awesome. Its also the hardest workout I've ever had in my life.

These threads always devolve into the guys who sweat in training arguing with the guys that pretend to poke eyes in training arguing for pages and pages. Ignore them and go try BJJ or Judo.

.02
Russell

 

[qayak]

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.

Grapplers tend to get their asses kicked in anything outside the ring.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Grapplers tend to get their asses kicked in anything outside the ring.

Evidences?

 

[Cobalt]

Jiu Jitsu. The only real "philosophy" to any of my classes have been "here's how you kick someone's ass using this badass hold."

I would personally suggest basic boxing classes just as a matter of learning to keep your hands up and such.

BJJ is great but against multiple people you'd do well to know at least how to block and counter punch.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Even if you want to take it out of modern ..yadda yadda yadda...
Even a melee, the least organized kind of battle,....yadda yaddda

There just isn't anything truly martial about any modern martial art in anyway. This isn't even a matter of effectiveness; even an effective one is simply effective at some other goal, not war.

What was done then was martial arts, and much of what people train today is martial art. Martial arts are simply a systematic way of learning how to fight. You do realize that soldiers and marines today are still trained in hand-hand martial arts combat, don't you?

As far as old melee war simulations, there are groups out there that do that kind of stuff as well.

 

[Leif Roar]

You do realize that soldiers and marines today are still trained in hand-hand martial arts combat, don't you?

Soldiers are still trained in military drill too -- which is actually closer to skills they'd use on a pre-rifle battlefield than the modern melee systems are. Nobody calls military drill a "martial art", though.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Nobody calls military drill a "martial art", though.

I do, because it fits the definition of being a systematic way of learning how to fight.

 

[qayak]

Jiu Jitsu. The only real "philosophy" to any of my classes have been "here's how you kick someone's ass using this badass hold."

I would personally suggest basic boxing classes just as a matter of learning to keep your hands up and such.

BJJ is great but against multiple people you'd do well to know at least how to block and counter punch.

Have you ever been in or, witnessed, a bar fight? Anybody who goes to the ground is in serious threat of getting their head kicked in by anyone with enough alcohol in them to think they are a baddass.

 

[GreNME]

Nobody calls military drill a "martial art", though.

False. Other branches may refer to it as CQ or H2H training, but there are classes for it and I'm fairly certain that the US military has at least three or four inter-related martial arts training types it teaches.