Jump to content

Martial Arts


The Pezman
 Share

Recommended Posts

I used to practiced Shaolin-Do martial arts, though I originally thought it was Karate. I only made it up to a second degree brown belt, having moved away at that time. I was so close to getting my black belt. I really wish I had.

While this is technically considered a mixed-martial art, it does remain true to spirit of learning proper form and technique over learning to simply fight for fighting's sake. The techniques are very broad utilizing a variety of open-hand and armed katas. It's a really great martial art for beginning because of it's variety.

The major drawback to it though is the amount of money that you have to spend on it, each month you're either having to buy a new weapon, pay for your testing, or for participation in seminars or trips, on top of having to pay for lessons. It's the martial art for capitalists.

However, I gotta say that the first day we used sais I had fulfilled my ninja turtle fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

it does remain true to spirit of learning proper form and technique over learning to simply fight for fighting's sake

The only time I've ever had a problem with that statement is when the time comes when you have to defend yourself. IMO there's nothing not allowed when it comes to life & death situations. In example, I'll more likely use my fists in self-defense but I'm not gonna let m,y own style hinder my chances of surviving, expecially if I can expand my skills. :)!!

I believe it was Bruce Lee himself that stated how he hated the rigid fighting styles back then and how he came about creating his own style which he tried to emphasis on creativity with practicality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is basically established as a myth. Just because it's a practical art doesn't mean it is automatically superior to other martial arts. Also, apparently normal MMA style is actually more complete and practical than even military arts since military stylesfocus so much on one side of practicality of quick, unarmed combat. Military styles are there to offset the helplessness of being unarmed. I'm not saying military styles are weak, but they aren't exactly the 'ultimate' forms of martial arts some people like to say they are. They have their own faults like any other martial arts as I see it.

I'd choose a fighter who is built to stand for a longer fight than someone who is in it to finish quickly.

Modern Army Combatives have the same base as any good MMA Artist, Gracie Jiu-Jitsu. Every MMA fighter uses GJJ as a base ground style, and supplement it with a stand up game. MAC GFT courses are essentially a MMA school where the fighting is rooted in Muay Thai and American Boxing on the upright side. It's very similar to Tito Ortiz and Tim Sylvia's fighting style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only time I've ever had a problem with that statement is when the time comes when you have to defend yourself. IMO there's nothing not allowed when it comes to life & death situations. In example, I'll more likely use my fists in self-defense but I'm not gonna let m,y own style hinder my chances of surviving, expecially if I can expand my skills. :)!!

Well, I have to agree with you on that statement, because the truth is, I couldn't fight my way out of a cardboard box. Seriously, that stuff is hard to break.

I should say that the emphasis that they make is on the artform; the classes emphasize that you should never reach a situation where you have to fight.

I believe it was Bruce Lee himself that stated how he hated the rigid fighting styles back then and how he came about creating his own style which he tried to emphasis on creativity with practicality.

The same could be said of any artform today. It really becomes more of an issue of whether or not you wish to follow a predetermined style of fighting or your own. But, as you say, it's be better to learn to enhance your skills if your purpose is to learn self-defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd choose a fighter who is built to stand for a longer fight than someone who is in it to finish quickly.

I think a majority of black belts and similarly seasoned fighters would disagree. If you learn techniques which are meant to end a fight in one shot, that's incredibly advantageous. Every second you spend in actual combat is another second for you to fuck up or for your opponent simply to catch a lucky break. If you can take a lot of punches, good for you, but it really doesn't take much to incapacitate another human being. A quick fight prevents that from happening (or else is the result).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JUDO

I'd classify it more as a sport than a Martial art, though it's definitely both.

In terms of finishing a fight, being able to finish it off quick is much better. There are certain things that no one, no matter how tough, is built to endure.

Chokes are a good example. We had an excellent, super strong judoka on our team for a while who was pretty much unstoppable, until people started choking him. It doesn't matter how built you are, you still need blood flow to the brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, a Martial Arts thread I didn't create! :P j/k

Anyway, been doing Aikido for a couple years. Mixing in with this, I've been training extensively with practical self defense and pressure point combat...makes atemi more effective if you have the knowledge of what areas to strike in muscle memory. Anyway, simply put, I love Aikido and while I'll continue to learn techniques from other styles through my life, this is "the one" for me. Because of its fluid nature in following the energy of the opponent, it lends itself well to practical application (though due to its steep learning curve, it may not seem so). I have a friend who studied jujutsu and jojutsu for a time and joked about it being too soft because it's a do art, but in my experiences that isn't necessarily the case. Aikido can be hard (just as in Aikijutsu), but I think it's most rewarding in soft technique. Regardless of whether one's preference is for hard or soft technique with Aikido, effective use of it in self defense situations will end in the same result for someone not expecting it (and that doesn't matter what you've trained in...anyone who has trained in aikido and had a technique [such as a kote gaeshi] come at them faster than they could perform ukemi knows firsthand what I mean). I also really enjoy the fact that while strikes are ever-present in proper technique (O-Sensei once said Aikido is 90% atemi after all, and if this seems like an oxymoron to you then you don't know enough about Aikido :P), that isn't the emphasis especially in the dojo - no need for special conditioning (hand conditioning especially) that is more often than not pointless in real-life self defense applications.

Anyway, people brought up self defense and MMA. First off, I think MMA is great as entertainment but (and no offense to anyone who likes this or does this) it isn't actually related to Martial Arts nor practical self defense. A Martial Art needs to have philosophies and other non-martial aspects to it, otherwise it's just a fighting style. Also, learning to take hits and doing ground work isn't condusive to keeping yourself safe in the common self defense situation, which is most usually against multiple (possibly armed) assailants. Fact of the matter is a boxer can give and receive hits like no other because that's what they're trained to do, but a boxer's reactions aren't gonna keep him any more alive against a few street thugs with knives - the same concept is applicable to MMA fighters and most sports Martial Artists. I-N-J-I-N made the comment "I'd choose a fighter who is built to stand for a longer fight than someone who is in it to finish quickly": maybe that's true if you're betting who'll win an MMA match, but if you're talking self defense I don't have any idea how you came to that conclusion since everything I've learned is contrary to this. If you're outnumbered you don't have time to play with one guy till you've landed that perfect KO punch, since as you're dealing with him his buddies have already ventilated your kidney - in real life opponents don't line up and take turns. Joint manipulations/breaks, quick strikes to vital/pressure points, and many times throws based on using the opponent's own attacking energy to destabilize himself can be used in real situations to bring down an attacker fast without investing much time in them, and a major component of this is getting off the line of opponent's attack. You also need to have the proper reaction - your techniques or strikes down to muscle memory and applied properly according to what the situation dictates, since everyone knows you don't have time to rationalize everything in real life and there's no one technique that will work in all or even most situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the popularity of MMA nowadays I am very surprised that people over here are sticking to karate and tkd. Not a single boxer, thai boxer, or a bjj practitioner here? I do all three, but mainly focus on boxing. And actually, I can understand why someone would stick to karate or tkd instead. To practice MMA one has to be rather athletic and not be afraid to take some punishment. No one likes to get hit in the face or choked out, its quite normal.

In my opinion, traditional martial arts are focused on the form and the art itself rather than on fighting. They are great if you want to become more centered and disciplined. However, due to the lack of athletic preparation such as conditioning, practicality, and full contact sparring, traditional martial arts are not quite as useful in a real fight.

Penfold:

Aikido and similar passive self-defense techniques are useful only against unsuspecting opponents with little or not fighting experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, traditional martial arts are focused on the form and the art itself rather than on fighting. They are great if you want to become more centered and disciplined. However, due to the lack of athletic preparation such as conditioning, practicality, and full contact sparring, traditional martial arts are not quite as useful in a real fight.

Judo randori (free practice) is the second best exercise one can do. The first is swimming. And all police officers in Japan are required to be at least a shodon (1st degree black belt) in Judo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judo randori is the second best exercise one can do. The first is swimming. And all police officers in Japan are required to be at least a shodon in Judo.

I hope you are not suggesting here that boxers are not some of the best conditioned athletes out there... It's common knowledge...

Not to rag on Judo, which is a rather practical skill, but most of the Judo practitioners I know do not look like athletes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the popularity of MMA nowadays I am very surprised that people over here are sticking to karate and tkd. Not a single boxer, thai boxer, or a bjj practitioner here? I do all three, but mainly focus on boxing. And actually, I can understand why someone would stick to karate or tkd instead. To practice MMA one has to be rather athletic and not be afraid to take some punishment. No one likes to get hit in the face or choked out, its quite normal.

In my opinion, traditional martial arts are focused on the form and the art itself rather than on fighting. They are great if you want to become more centered and disciplined. However, due to the lack of athletic preparation such as conditioning, practicality, and full contact sparring, traditional martial arts are not quite as useful in a real fight.

Umm...no. No offense, because I think I can understand your frame of reference (and by traditional martial arts I think you actually mean sport martial arts btw), but you're way off base and your assumptions are unfounded. A good buddy of mine who trains in Aikido and self-defense/pressure points with me is a great counterexample. He did Taekwondo for 4-5 years: an extremely efficient self-defense, non-Olympic style form (sorry, don't know the style name offhand) because he used to live in D.C. and needed something to use to defend himself. What he knows required a great deal of conditioning, had him participate in full-contact sparring, is less rigid than the Olympic styles of TKD you normally see, and, well, in the end he can kick my ass (that's saying something). In regard to a "real fight" and practical self defense especially where MMA is concerned, I'll refer to my previous post. In regard to people who do traditional martial arts being afraid to take a beating, I call bullshit - plain and simple. For the athletics involved, it just proves to me further you know very little about the Martial Arts world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you are not suggesting here that boxers are not some of the best conditioned athletes out there... It's common knowledge...

Not to rag on Judo, which is a rather practical skill, but most of the Judo practitioners I know do not look like athletes.

I'm suggesting that generalizing about "traditional" martial arts not being rigorous is foolish and completely incorrect in many instances.

In terms of appearance, I'm not sure how you survive in MMA if you can't differentiate how fit one looks as compared to how fit they ARE.

Pretty much every MMA person who comes into judo assumes he can get by without learning anything, because he's relatively fit. These people get outlasted and beat routinely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penfold:

Aikido and similar passive self-defense techniques are useful only against unsuspecting opponents with little or not fighting experience.

Completely wrong.

Agreed with Fenrir. Ambient: again no offense man, but it looks really foolish when you talk about things you clearly don't know about. You might want to learn more about a topic before you make statements off of baseless assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm...no. No offense, because I think I can understand your frame of reference (and by traditional martial arts I think you actually mean sport martial arts btw), but you're way off base and your assumptions are unfounded.

None taken. I can actually understand your frame of reference as well. You draw from your experiences, I draw from mine, and there is nothing we can do to convince each other otherwise. Plus, anyone, including myself, would be very defensive about their respective discipline in an argument. I wouldn't be as critical of the traditional arts if I hadn't sparred with some of the guys with background in karate and tkd or actually attended some traditional dojos. But having seen what goes on there first hand, I have to say that I was unimpressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm...no. No offense, because I think I can understand your frame of reference (and by traditional martial arts I think you actually mean sport martial arts btw), but you're way off base and your assumptions are unfounded. A good buddy of mine who trains in Aikido and self-defense/pressure points with me is a great counterexample. He did Taekwondo for 4-5 years: an extremely efficient self-defense, non-Olympic style form (sorry, don't know the style name offhand) because he used to live in D.C. and needed something to use to defend himself. What he knows required a great deal of conditioning, had him participate in full-contact sparring, is less rigid than the Olympic styles of TKD you normally see, and, well, in the end he can kick my ass (that's saying something). In regard to a "real fight" and practical self defense especially where MMA is concerned, I'll refer to my previous post. In regard to people who do traditional martial arts being afraid to take a beating, I call bullshit - plain and simple. For the athletics involved, it just proves to me further you know very little about the Martial Arts world.

Army combatives are rooted in Gracie Jiu Jitsu, Muay Thai, Escrima, and American boxing. The Army overhauled its hand to hand combat methodology in 2002 after exhaustive research regarding hand to hand combat in a non sport environment, i.e. The battlefield. Their study found that over 75% of all hand to hand combat winds up on the ground. They detirmined that Gracie Jiu Jitsu is the most effective style to use in a ground fighting situation. The study was then expanded to include the stand up portion of a fight. They found that Muay Thai is the most damaging striking art from the lower body, and that American Boxing is the most damaging striking art from the upper body, and fosters the best Spatial Awareness. The study was then expanded to include combat with field expedient melee weapons, Knives, Pipes, Rifles, E-Tools, and others, and they found that Escrima was the most effective hand weapon style. They then compiled these styles into the MAC GFT courses.

In a hand to hand combat fight to the death, those are the best styles at their various niches. The outcome depends on respective skill level, physical conditioning, and luck, but those 4 styles as a base will give you the best chance to incapacitate your opponent.

Someone teach me the right way to choke people please.

Read the PDF of the FM 3-25.150 that I posted earlier. It lays out the most effective blood chokes to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Army combatives are rooted in Gracie Jiu Jitsu, Muay Thai, Escrima, and American boxing... Gracie Jiu Jitsu is the most effective style to use in a ground fighting situation... They found that Muay Thai is the most damaging striking art from the lower body, and that American Boxing is the most damaging striking art from the upper body, and fosters the best Spatial Awareness...

Thank you! Great to see at least one person who knows his stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None taken. I can actually understand your frame of reference as well. You draw from your experiences, I draw from mine, and there is nothing we can do to convince each other otherwise. Plus, anyone, including myself, would be very defensive about their respective discipline in an argument. I wouldn't be as critical of the traditional arts if I hadn't sparred with some of the guys with background in karate and tkd or actually attended some traditional dojos. But having seen what goes on there first hand, I have to say that I was unimpressed.

Judging a martial art by a few of its practitioners seems like a pretty flawed frame of reference to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Army combatives are rooted in Gracie Jiu Jitsu, Muay Thai, Escrima, and American boxing. The Army overhauled its hand to hand combat methodology in 2002 after exhaustive research regarding hand to hand combat in a non sport environment, i.e. The battlefield. Their study found that over 75% of all hand to hand combat winds up on the ground. They detirmined that Gracie Jiu Jitsu is the most effective style to use in a ground fighting situation. The study was then expanded to include the stand up portion of a fight. They found that Muay Thai is the most damaging striking art from the lower body, and that American Boxing is the most damaging striking art from the upper body, and fosters the best Spatial Awareness. The study was then expanded to include combat with field expedient melee weapons, Knives, Pipes, Rifles, E-Tools, and others, and they found that Escrima was the most effective hand weapon style. They then compiled these styles into the MAC GFT courses.

I've actually heard this before (more specifically in regard to MCMAP and also the percentage of unarmed conflicts which end up on the ground, though I thought it was a bit higher), though this seems a little off the topic from what I was saying in the post you quoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've actually heard this before (more specifically in regard to MCMAP and also the percentage of unarmed conflicts which end up on the ground, though I thought it was a bit higher), though this seems a little off the topic from what I was saying in the post you quoted.

Yeah, I quoted the wrong post. I was taking issue with this comment.

Anyway, people brought up self defense and MMA. First off, I think MMA is great as entertainment but (and no offense to anyone who likes this or does this) it isn't actually related to Martial Arts nor practical self defense. A Martial Art needs to have philosophies and other non-martial aspects to it, otherwise it's just a fighting style. Also, learning to take hits and doing ground work isn't condusive to keeping yourself safe in the common self defense situation, which is most usually against multiple (possibly armed) assailants. Fact of the matter is a boxer can give and receive hits like no other because that's what they're trained to do, but a boxer's reactions aren't gonna keep him any more alive against a few street thugs with knives - the same concept is applicable to MMA fighters and most sports Martial Artists. I-N-J-I-N made the comment "I'd choose a fighter who is built to stand for a longer fight than someone who is in it to finish quickly": maybe that's true if you're betting who'll win an MMA match, but if you're talking self defense I don't have any idea how you came to that conclusion since everything I've learned is contrary to this. If you're outnumbered you don't have time to play with one guy till you've landed that perfect KO punch, since as you're dealing with him his buddies have already ventilated your kidney - in real life opponents don't line up and take turns. Joint manipulations/breaks, quick strikes to vital/pressure points, and many times throws based on using the opponent's own attacking energy to destabilize himself can be used in real situations to bring down an attacker fast without investing much time in them, and a major component of this is getting off the line of opponent's attack. You also need to have the proper reaction - your techniques or strikes down to muscle memory and applied properly according to what the situation dictates, since everyone knows you don't have time to rationalize everything in real life and there's no one technique that will work in all or even most situations.

The prevelent MMA style, GJJ with a supplemental striking art is not just a practical self defense art, it's the best self defense art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey ya'll. Been an OC fan for a while, but this topic got me to actually post. I pratice the Moo Duk Kwan style of Tae Kwan Do. We do the Tae Geuk forms, but I was wondering if anyone has any experience or knowledge of the Chung Bong forms? I know Chung Bong one, but there are more that I have no idea about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...